Something really crazy is happening in the Arctic

By Tom Yulsman | November 20, 2016 7:22 pm

At a time when sea ice should be expanding, it’s actually shrinking

A crazy decrease in sea ice

Changes in the concentration of Arctic sea ice between Nov. 12 and 19, 2016 are seen in this animation of satellite data. The North Pole is at the center. Areas with 100 percent coverage of ice are depicted in white. Lighter to darker blue tones are indicative of decreasing concentrations. And areas with no ice are in gray. Ice actually decreased within the area circled in red in the first frame of the animation. (Data: University of Bremen. Images: Polar View. Animation: Tom Yulsman)

Sea ice in the Arctic has been trending at record low levels since the third week of October — and now, something really crazy is happening up there.

The Arctic is heading into the dead of winter, and across a vast swath of territory, the polar night has descended, with 24 hours of darkness each day. This is when temperatures should be plunging, and sea ice should be expanding rapidly.

Instead, temperatures are soaring, and sea ice is actually shrinking

This shouldn’t be happening.

To be clear, sea ice is growing in some areas. But since Nov. 16th, the overall trend has been downward.

That’s largely because sea ice has been contracting significantly in the Arctic Ocean adjacent to the island archipelagos of Svalbard and Franz Josef Land. You can watch it happen in the Tweeted animation above, and also in the animation at the top of this story. Both are based on data acquired by the AMSR2 instrument aboard Japan’s GCOM-W satellite.

Crazy decrease in sea ice

Arctic sea ice extent is charted here for each year since 1979. This year’s extent was already trending at record-low levels. Now, ice coverage has stopped expanding completely — and has begun to shrink. (Source: NSIDC)

What the heck is going on?

Against the backdrop of human-caused global warming — a phenomenon that has caused the Arctic to warm twice as fast as any other region on Earth — the region is having a particularly difficult time cooling down this winter. As Bob Henson puts it in an in-depth story titled “Crazy Cryosphere” at Weather Underground’s Category-6 blog:

Temperatures north of 80°N smashed records for warmth throughout the winter of 2015-16. Now they’re on an even more torrid pace.

Here’s one way to think of what’s happening: Natural variation has long brought both cooler and warmer than average temperatures to the Arctic in all seasons. But now, we humans are putting our finger on the scale, tipping the balance in favor of excess warmth.

And right now, we’re talking crazy warm:

Crazy high temperatures in the Arctic

Temperature departures from normal, as forecast by the GFS weather model for the five-day period beginning Sunday, Nov. 20. (Source: Climate Reanalyzer/University of Maine)

In the map above, the brightest red tones are indicative of temperatures that are more than 35 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal. For areas of the Barents Sea near Svalbard and Franz Josef Land, that has meant above freezing air temperatures near the surface.

A complex set of factors seems to be at play.

Back in August, two large storms in the Arctic helped break up sea ice and may have stirred up warm water from the depths, according to Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This helped drive Arctic sea ice to a near-record-low in September.

SEE ALSO: Arctic sea ice trends near a record low for this time of year

In fact, record lows have been set for Arctic sea ice on 160 days so far this year, according to Zack Labe, a PhD student studying Arctic climate at the University of California at Irvine.

This means vast swaths of the ocean surface were exposed to sunlight for a longer period than normal. Ice is very effective at reflecting solar energy. But dark surface waters absorb it readily. So water already warmed by the stirring action of the storms was able to get warmer still, thereby hindering formation of sea ice.

Now, those waters are giving off some of that energy to the atmosphere, probably accounting in part for the unusual air temperatures at the surface right now. At the same time, atmospheric circulation patterns have been pumping warm air into the region from the south, apparently slowing the cool-down of ocean waters.

The result: a truly bizarre situation in the Arctic.

Meanwhile, a large portion of Eurasia has been crazy cold and snowy. You can see this in the blue and purple colors in the temperature anomaly map above. As Bob Henson of Category-6 explains:

It’s as if the hemisphere’s entire allotment of chilly, snowy weather has been rounded up and consigned to one area, albeit a big one. For this, we can credit or blame what’s called a “wave one” pattern, where the upper-level circulation around the North Pole is dominated by a single elongated loop, shunted in this case toward the Eurasian side.

Meanwhile, at the other pole, Antarctic sea ice is also trending at record-low levels. Head over to Henson’s post for more details about that. Here’s the link again: http://bit.ly/2eUJrG1

ADVERTISEMENT
  • KRS

    If those storms did bring warm water up from the depths, I wonder if this is the beginning of the sea giving back the heat it has sequestered for so long.

    • DogRancher


      You should be more worried about methane hydrates letting loose from the Arctic ocean.

  • OWilson

    See all that blue stuff on the forecast map (Fig. 4) ?

    The lack of cold air over the North Polar Region is due to the record setting Polar Vortex that has been hanging over Northern Asia.

    This Polar Vortex frigid air shift has been major news,(everywhere but here :)

    Russia, Siberia, China and India have seen record cold temperatures. Scandinavia are setting snow and snow cover records.

    A similar situation occurred in January of this year. Scores were killed by the cold.

    These shifts in frigid air are not unusual, only the name “Polar Vortex” is new. North America experiences them on a regular on a regular basis.

    It would be a mistake to assume that the cold air has disappeared (it has just moved) or that the rate of gradual warming of the planet Globally, has “suddenly gone through the roof!”.

    • BBQman

      The sky must be falling, take cover!

      • OWilson

        “The end is nigh! Give up your worldly goods, and ye shall be saved!”

        Biblical nonsense that is still being hawked today. Man is a Sinner!

        But God/The Dear Leader is Good! Man can be saved by Confession.

        And, with a “Special dispensation from the Bishop”, Di Caprio, Al Gore, Lady Ga Ga, and Heinz-Kerry, can have their mansions, yatchts, jet planes.

        The ocean front houses/palaces/mansions of Bernie, Al Gore, the Hollywood Malibu crowd, those elite in Boca Raton, Miami, Cape Cod, and the Martha’s Vineyard Kennedys, will be saved from that giant indundation that will wash away all the sinners!

        That brick in the toilet is for the great unwashed, not the chosen ones!

        • BBQman

          indeed….but why the brick?

          • OWilson

            Al Gore was a fan of putting a brick in your toilet tank to save water per flush!

            He, of the many bathrooms! :)

          • BBQman

            That hypocrite should worry about decreasing his own worthless footprint, the guy sold us out to slow our economy and grow China’s, Al should be tried for Treason.

          • goofy

            Tried? No way! His “carbon credits” will rescue him!

          • OWilson

            Church elders are exempt from worldly considerations.

            They are not to be “denied” or even questioned!

          • goofy

            Oh Goodness! I forgot!!!! Gore HAS been dubbed “His Eminence” now, hasn’t he? Seeing as he never got credit for inventing the internet, and all.

          • OWilson

            The first law of physics (today):

            Never question a failed divinity student (Al Gore) or a Chicago street organizer (Barack Hossein Obama)

            You must trust them, believe them and everything will be OK!

            It’s much easier than actually thinking!

          • goofy

            Why, even worship them!

          • OWilson

            It appeals to the empty heads!

            “What have they got to lose?” :)

  • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

    That graph of global sea ice anomaly from the WU post is worth posting too:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7278bd07ee56696e087e63bb9ccbe0d010e774fa9c214c0fead66cda669489ac.png

    Where the anomaly is now is the definition of uncharted territory for the time period graphed.

    • Very relieved Gamerdude

      Weird how your graph does not match this one.

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

      • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

        That’s because the graph you are linking to is for the arctic only, whereas the graph displayed above is arctic + antarctic.

        Any more points you’d like to raise?

        • Very relieved Gamerdude

          Sure….got a link to that chart?

          The “anomaly” is only that due to arctic ice. Antarctic ice is at record levels.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Sure. I first saw the graph in the Wunderground article that is linked to at the end of the blog post above. But the origin of the graph is the Arctic Sea Ice forum:

            http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.msg94284.html#msg94284

            And you are not up to date on where the Antarctic stands on sea ice. Here is the latest chart from the NSIDC:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eeb1a312801f25606e7533903bd60b25c832952878f2315ac513499ab73ecaf7.jpg

            The global level in the chart I posted would never be as odd if the Antarctic weren’t also relatively low with respect to its average.

          • Very relieved Gamerdude
          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            This is silly. This is from 2014, when Antarctic sea ice did indeed reach a record maximum.

            But 2014 does not equal 2016. Current levels are far below that record as shown in the graph I posted.

          • Very relieved Gamerdude

            Btw…I’m not saying that this is the cause…but be aware of it. I don’t know if it was fixed.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/11/more-satellite-problems-with-arctic-sea-ice-measurement/

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Yes, this was fixed back in May when the switch to a different satellite was accomplished:

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/06/satellite-data-transition-complete/

          • Very relieved Gamerdude

            Thanks.

          • Very relieved Gamerdude

            Actually, I missed the date. I take it back. I must research more.
            That was what came up while searching.
            The article was updated…but I missed the graphic date.

          • Very relieved Gamerdude

            Interesting comment at your link. Thanks for that.
            https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/crazy-cryosphere-record-low-sea-ice-an-overheated-arctic-and-a-snow

            Extract: “Experts agree that the laggard sea ice this month around Antarctica is a separate matter from the Arctic, because sea ice in the northern and southern polar regions is produced by two markedly different circulation regimes and geographies. “At NSIDC, we generally frown on the practice of looking at the global sea ice extent,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “the reason being that ice in the two hemispheres tends to behave rather differently; while Arctic extent shows clear downward trends in all months, the pattern for the Antarctic has been much more complex.” Serreze and several other ice experts I contacted agreed that there was no obvious explanation for why sea ice extent would suddenly dip in unison in both the Arctic and Antarctic when the two processes are typically so uncorrelated. Previous record-warm years didn’t behave this way. Could some previously dormant or absent connection be popping up just now? If so, it’s not an obvious one. NSIDC’s Ted Scambos: “I’d say that to link the two poles with a single causality chain at the seasonal/annual level is probably about a decade of research in the future.””

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            And I have no problem with this quote. Why would you think that I did?

            And obviously this quote has nothing to do with noting that global sea ice is far outside of anything observed in the satellite era. Agreed?

          • Very relieved Gamerdude

            I did not think that you would have a problem with it. I meant that it was interesting and so I linked it. It was just on your link and concerned the study of such things. We don’t have to be adversaries just because we disagree on some things.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Actually, since we disagree, we are adversaries. But we can be respectful as we defend our relative positions.

          • Very relieved Gamerdude

            Fair enough.

          • BBQman

            I agree, well said!

          • OWilson

            Translation:

            “We don’t don’t look at the overall picture, because it conflicts with our end of times scenario, and doesn’t tend to raise money! :)

        • Very relieved Gamerdude
          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            And I wouldn’t argue that this did not play a role – but I haven’t seen any argument that claims this is the sole reason. If you have a source that claims this, please provide.

            There are likely multiple reasons for the anomalous behavior we are observing – including human caused climate change.

          • Very relieved Gamerdude

            I agree that there a likely multiple reasons. We just don’t agree on the last one.

    • Very relieved Gamerdude
    • CB

      Are you paying attention to what’s going on here?

      There is an organised attack on the thread.

      They are the same “people” who run with Coccyx on the Science channel.

      It’s intentional misinformation!

      Scott needs to be aware of it…

      • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

        CB, Scott can’t do anything here. This isn’t a discus science channel discussion.

        • CB

          lol! Yes, I’m aware of that, CGS.

          I’m trying to get you to pay attention to an intentional campaign to subvert the science which is going on at the Science channel… and in any number of other places as well…

          These aren’t amateurs we’re dealing with.

  • BBQman

    There is nothing to be alarmed about, the current surface temperature of the Arctic is 1 degree Fahrenheit, at 4,000 meters -26 F, at 9,000 meters it is -60 F, we are not 32 degrees hightail than normal, whatever the temperature is right now is normal and within historical normal ranges for the last 10,000 years, the same conditions were also experienced in 1816 and 1817, along with several other times during the last 10,000 years. None of these activities have anything to to with CO2, what we are experiencing are the same climate drivers that have always driven our climate, anomalies and all.

    • CB

      “There is nothing to be alarmed about”

      How do you know, Barbie? Where are you getting your information?

      “Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice. The rate of decline has steepened in the 21st century.”

      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

      • BBQman

        Tell you, study this chart and watch this guys presentation on YouTube, you might learn a few things, he is one of my many-many-many sources of information, I read a lot.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd9728c9e82927fc8200b77bf6395eb472d2216a13102a874045d248153b3141.jpg

        • Paul

          Oh, my. This could case a cranial vacuum collapse :-)

          • BBQman

            Indeed, and thank you Paul for your continued support on this very most interesting topic!
            Have a happy Thanksgiving!!

          • CB

            “thank you Paul for your continued support on this very most interesting topic!”

            Paul didn’t contribute to the topic, Barbie! …and I think Paul isn’t even a separate human being from you… Am I right?

            nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/02/figure-3.png

          • BBQman

            Why don’t you talk to Paul and find out, he is a lot smarter then me?

          • CB

            “Why don’t you talk to Paul and find out”

            He’s welcome to chime in! …if, indeed, he’s a separate person. Why are you and/or your little buddies having difficulty discussing the subject of the article, Barbie?

            If you refuse to discuss the subject of the article, why shouldn’t you receive a permanent ban from the site?

            psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

          • BBQman

            It’s appears that the topic of this thread is my opinion that our climate is as normal as it has ever been, how about You getting back on topic?

          • Paul

            We are conjoined twins connected at the hip. Why are you so dismissive of the anatomically diverse? I am an independent person and anyone could tell that from a cursory examination of my profile. Your sock claim is a ridiculous diversion that you think has merit. It portrays an unfulfilled need for you to be popular and accepted. It has far more value for you than it does for us. We don’t care. Upvotes happen….for some. Grab a blankie and try to deal with the fact that your needs are relatively unrequited.

          • OHJonesy

            Global warming seems to be a concern for snow flakes, which should stir our compassion, but I’m looking forward to the day I can decommission the snow blower!

            Sincerely, just one more sock in the drawer. :-)~

          • OHJonesy

            Question: What happened at the end of every ice age in the history of Planet Earth?

            Answer: Global warming.

            Your chart of the past 37 years is a joke, climate changes occur over thousands of years, and they’ve been happening long before man came on the scene. Earth has moved between ages of nearly total ice coverage, to times when there was no ice at either pole.

            Earth may well be warming again, and for reasons that have nothing to do with man. Either way, there’s precious little we can do about it.

            P.S. I’m the long-forgotten argyle sock in Paul’s drawer. Happy Thanksgiving!

          • goofy

            Off topic, but have a Happy Thanksgiving, Paul.

          • Paul

            Thanksgiving is never off topic. It’s like bacon in that respect.

            You have a wonderful one as well Goofy.

          • “Divergent” sgthwjack ✯
          • BBQman
          • “Divergent” sgthwjack ✯

            We all die of something, might as well make the best of it, and thanks for your support. 😉

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d6162e3b2103681395c6aa79bdfa24a42ba5792605ceb695e4ce799310e6322c.jpg

          • http://pislamonauseacentral.tumblr.com/ *✿*Reputable *‿* Blueburb*✿*

            Love this ….Happy Thanksgiving!

          • CB

            “Love this”

            You do!?

            Why aren’t you loving it on an article about bacon instead of an article about the meltdown currently underway in the Arctic?

            “March 28, 2016… Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual maximum extent on March 24, and is now the lowest maximum in the satellite record, replacing last year’s record low.”

            nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/03/another-record-low-for-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-winter-extent

          • Red47 #happy
          • Cletus B Neckbeard✓Vindicated

            But… bacon!

          • OHJonesy

            Seriously, laughing out LOUD!

          • Cletus B Neckbeard✓Vindicated

            I gotz my priorities!

          • Red47 #happy

            hey nah…

          • Cletus B Neckbeard✓Vindicated

            Gotta tell ya, Sarge, that looks awesome. Maybe some jalapeño cheese sauce over it?

          • “Divergent” sgthwjack ✯

            Season to taste as they say.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Please confine your comments to the topic of the post. This isn’t a social media site to discuss your favorite food items.

          • Bart_R

            It’s not really surprising to see roving bands of meowsers disrupting threads maliciously on any pretext.

            If you visit any of the BBQman-modded IP-scavenging Disqus pages, you’ll see eager echo chamber recruits preparing to support their tribe with glee, and no shame whatsoever.

            It’s sad that such conduct so polarizes discussions, and even the tip of the iceberg undermines the purpose of Disqus.

            Good luck.

          • MarcVader

            Just ban the paid shills already, ffs.

          • OHJonesy

            NICE!! My mouth just started watering like Pavlov’s dog!

          • Red47 #happy

            What would then fill the resulting void?

          • Paul

            Jalapeno poppers would be an upgrade.

        • Jed of the Victorious

          That was really an outstanding lecture. Brother Paul let me know about it some time ago; a great tip.

          • http://pislamonauseacentral.tumblr.com/ *✿*Reputable *‿* Blueburb*✿*

            Happy Thanksgiving Jed:+)

          • Jed of the Victorious

            Thanks, Blue! Back at you!

          • CB

            “Thanks, Blue! Back at you!”

            There the shell accounts are! Excellent strategy, comrade(s).

            Now, why are your characters having difficulty discussing the subject of the article?

            psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

          • Jed of the Victorious

            I’m sorry that you don’t have any friends, but Happy Thanksgiving to you too!

          • CB

            “I’m sorry”

            You should be. If you drown a thread in artificially-promoted, animated gifs, does that make the topic of the thread disappear?

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png

          • BBQman

            Will these threads eventually be hidden away like the Dead Sea scrolls on hundreds of thumb drives to be discovered by talking Apes in the distance future?

            If only your insulting comments were removed from all threads, much space could be freed up you know.

          • CB

            “Will these threads eventually be hidden away”

            Perhaps. I thought I was chatting with Jed. Are you already done pretending you’re different people? Why are you having difficulty discussing the subject of the article, Barbie?

            “The Arctic is facing a decline in sea ice that might equal the negative record of 2012”

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421085209.htm

          • Dan Imler

            Now, the fifth daughter on the twelfth night
            Told the first father that things weren’t right
            “My complexion,” she says, “is much too white”
            He said, “Come here and step into the light”
            He said, “Hmm, you’re right, let me tell the second mother this has been done”
            But the second mother was with the seventh son
            And they were both out on Highway 61

          • Red47 #happy
          • CB

            Uh huh, and why should you be permitted to spam this article with animated gifs? If you don’t have a coherent thought to share on the failure of Arctic sea ice to reform this winter, why are you here?

            You do realise you depend on that sea ice for your survival… right?

            “September 2016 sea ice volume was 4,500 km³, about 1300 km³ below the 2015 value and the third lowest for September on record with 2012 being the lowest and 2011 nearly tying 2016. 2016. September volume was 73% below the maximum September ice volume in 1979”

            psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly

          • Red47 #happy

            Because you hates memes.

          • Red47 #happy

            BBQ already said what I would say.

          • OHJonesy

            And he said it better than I ever could – Happy
            Thanksgiving to you and yours, Red!!

          • Red47 #happy

            Funny, I was going to say he said it better, too.
            Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well.

          • OWilson

            Relax, smile, it’s one of the special times of the year to spread a little goodwill.

            You can get back to your grand delusions of Armageddon, after the weekend. :)

            Happy Thanksgiving to all!

          • 😈 FIREBRED ✓Vindicated
          • Jed of the Victorious

            Thanks, Fire! Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well!

          • CB

            “Happy Thanksgiving”

            Yes, you’ve all wished each other Happy Thanksgiving multiple times now… and you’ve given each other a thunderous round of applause for having done so.

            Why are you doing that on a thread about the meltdown happening in the Arctic? Are you paid?

            nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images//arctic-amplification-1960-2011-hires.gif

          • OHJonesy

            Happy belated Thanksgiving to YOU, FB! Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you Canadians celebrate Thanksgiving in October – sorry I missed that! :-)

          • 😈 FIREBRED ✓Vindicated

            Hello OH Jonesy, yes you are WRONG, Brother, lol! I AM American,
            not a Canuck, so you’ve made it in time … wishing you and your
            loved ones a happy, healthy and bountiful Thanksgiving celebration coming Thursday!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9f184a9e57c20bbe2dc93bc74b08fd14a748ede1a9563b29825a1e67215f113d.gif

            Stay safe and warm and don’t let the turkey get ya!

          • CB

            “yes you are WRONG”

            Agreed! …on any number of levels. Why are you liars/liar attempting to hijack this thread about a warming Arctic with artificially-promoted animated gifs of turkeys? Are you paid to do that?

            “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

          • 😈 FIREBRED ✓Vindicated

            Nice copy/paste job, CB! Did’ya do it all by yerself? Btw, you just can’t get it, do you? You’ve been proven wrong so many times by concise, scientific replies by BBQman, and ya still stuck on stoopid, WHY?

          • CB

            “Did’ya do it all by yerself?”

            Yes. I made the post myself.

            “you just can’t get it, do you?”

            I’m pretty sure I can. You’re trying to bury the science under mounds of artificially-promoted dancing baloney.

            “WHY?”

            Why are you talking to yourself?

            …because you’re mentally ill.

            If you shout over the person telling you a fact, does that make the fact go away, Fireman?

            “On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year.”

            nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-growth-in-the-arctic

          • OHJonesy

            LMAO, that was priceless, Jed! At the risk of being called another of your “shell accounts”, I’d like to wish you and your family a very Happy Thanksgiving, my friend!

          • Jed of the Victorious

            Thanks, Jonesy! Happy Thanksgiving!

          • CB

            “Happy Thanksgiving!”

            Yup. You’ve all said it about a hundred times now and then given each other a great round of applause for doing so. What does it have to do with the warming currently happening in the Arctic?

            “Global Warming Alters Arctic Food Chain, Scientists Say, With Unforeseeable Results”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/science/global-warming-alters-arctic-food-chain.html

          • Jed of the Victorious

            Foolish troll! Not everyone buys into your scam. Can you say “complex chaotic system”? Go hump the leg of one of your own.

          • Bucksergeant✓ᵛᶦᶫᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I see you’ve run into ‘Ole CB. Good for you, it’s sort of a rite of passage thingy.

          • Jed of the Victorious

            It’s not my first dance with her, but I’m not interested in another. I probably know more about the associated math and science of the subject than does she, but I’m not interested in debating zealots who ignore all that does not accord with their narrative and are more concerned with political posturing than with understanding.

          • Bucksergeant✓ᵛᶦᶫᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Agree..

          • CB

            “Agree”

            You agree with knowing math and science?

            So do I.

            If you think the Arctic is not melting down, how do you know, Buck?

            Where are you getting your information?

            “Tuesday 22 November 2016: ‘Extraordinarily hot’ Arctic temperatures alarm scientists. Danish and US researchers say warmer air and sea surface could lead to record lows of sea ice at north pole next year”

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/extraordinarily-hot-arctic-temperatures-alarm-scientist

          • Bucksergeant✓ᵛᶦᶫᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No one pulled your chaim, assshole

          • Mike Richardson

            Well CB, I’m at least thankful to see you fighting the good fight, attempting to keep the discussion relevant, and challenging those who employ political diatribes, spamming GIFs, and various other distractions in this thread. We’re facing some serious problems in the years ahead, and all the clowning around and head-burying in the world won’t change that. Thanks, again.

          • Cletus B Neckbeard✓Vindicated

            They’re giving thanks they aren’t gullible?

        • Wallace Frantz

          BBQMan… Do you have other sources who print such false graphs?

          You must be aware of the fact that graph is totally different than any other scientist group’s graphs on the same subject.

          It is in total disagreement with the graphs from NOAA, NASA, CDIAC, NSIDC and thousands of graphs published by scientists/climatologist professors at universities from all around the world.

    • The1TruthSpeaker

      All your misinformation has been countered multiple times. So your treason must be intentional. Why do you hate America ??

      • BBQman

        Alright anvil head, this is the last time because you guys just don’t want to get it.

        The earth’s Equatorial tilt and orbital eccentricities are established by earth’s two cores, inner and outer, the outer is liquid and has a directional flow with a Current and centrifugal thrust which is influenced by the electromagnetic energy of the inner core, but also accepts new flow alterations, sometimes temporary, meaning for a few decades to a few centuries, depending on magnitude of energy from solar anomalies including electrical magnetic pulses (EMP) or as some might say coronal mass ejections (CME), then those flow alterations change the location and direction of the centrifugal thrust produced, which has an impact on our tectonic plates and also produces volcanic activity above and below the sea, which will not only produce earthquakes as a result of the changes in centrifugal thrust, but undersea volcanic discharges which can, and have created El Nino affects and can also influence our oceans conveyance, which along with the above mentioned forces will influence our jet stream along with lunar gravitational forces that also help influence our normal climate and climate anomalies.

        Which means that CO2 is not a climate driver of any significance and most likely should stay between 345 to 1,000 ppm in our atmosphere for a lush healthy earth.

        Also there is about 1 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and our annual rain fall is around 500 trillion tons, this convection of rain loops with a volume “500 times” more massive then the CO2 concentrations, has always stabilized our green house gases and always will, the planet is functioning as normally as it always has, climate anomalies and all, imo…..any questions…Buller…Buller?

        • The1TruthSpeaker

          You’re avoiding the question.

        • ShawnNJ ✓President Trump

          Anvil Head! I needed a laugh this afternoon..Thank you!!

          • http://pislamonauseacentral.tumblr.com/ *✿*Reputable *‿* Blueburb*✿*

            Happy Thanksgiving Shawn.

          • ShawnNJ ✓President Trump

            Thank you and have a Happy Thanksgiving yourself!

          • http://pislamonauseacentral.tumblr.com/ *✿*Reputable *‿* Blueburb*✿*

            Thank you;+)

      • BigWaveDave

        Perhaps there is treason by those who wish to promote new social order by scaring kids with stories about how their CO2 is destroying the planet, without having a theory that explains how any measurable effect from CO2 could be physically possible.

        • The1TruthSpeaker

          You have internet access but you still remain that ignorant.
          Surprising. And suspicious.

          • BigWaveDave

            Your agenda is what is suspicious, or is it specious?

            You can’t state or quote a theory that explains how any measurable temperature change in the troposphere is a possible consequence of trace amounts of non condensing gases.

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            Are you really that lazy?

    • DogRancher


      Lets see, 4000 meters is 13,000 feet, and 9000 meters is 29500 feet. Many people won’t do well at 13000 feet. Even the healthiest human would be rather poor condition at 29,500 feet without an oxygen tank after handful of minutes.

      I suspect with Co2 a little bit goes a long way. Here is an experiment you might want to conduct with a good friend. Put a human in a large glass contender and raise the Co2 content by 1 percent every minute while keeping the O2 steady at 21%. Just replacing the nitrogen gas to keep the pressure constant. How long should that experiment run? Five minutes, ten minutes, twenty minutes, or an hour ?

      • BBQman

        What does the large glass container represent? What are we simulating?

        • DogRancher


          What I was talking about is something like a glass room, that has bullet proof glass that is air tight. Maybe something like a bell jar perhaps. Glass so we can observe the experiment in progress. Air tight so there will be no mixing of air. The large glass container could be under water. – We would need connections for instruments and pipes to take out the excess nitrogen to keep the pressure the same at all times. The O2 used by the human in the experiment would have to be replaced so it gas mixture would always have 21% O2. Then a pipe to let in some Co2 every minute.

          By the way can you please share the satellite photographs from the early 19th century, 1805 thru to 1825,would be enough so we can compare those photographs to the ones we have in our database from the last 20 years.

          Comparing those photographs should make people feel more secure in knowing there is nothing to worry about.

          Thank you for your efforts.

          • BBQman

            There will be no need for your experiment, just look at the US submarine, the atmosphere in a Sub is about 5,000 ppm of CO2 most of the time, if you need additional information please contact the US Navy.

            You will have to read ship Captain log books to understand what the perimeter of the polar ice was doing, we did not have satellites in the 1800s.

    • Icarus62

      The natural climate driver of orbital forcing should be causing continuing Arctic cooling at the rate of about 1C in 5,000 years. Today, because of our greenhouse gas emissions, the region is warming at the rate of 1C every 20 years. So, we’re causing Arctic temperature to rocket upwards about 250 times faster than natural, at a time when high northern latitude insolation is 9% less than during the HTM, and still declining. This highlights just how huge our influence on Earth’s climate is, since we became the primary driver of global climate change in the 20th Century.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/95860499ade1c4bdb670c0fc8db371dc45668d8430d43c310a6e0cf2b1466053.jpg

      • BBQman

        Go blow your smoke up someone else exhaust pipe.
        CO2 is not a significant climate driver, in fact CO2s effects on our climate are only 1/2,500th of water vapor, our climate is as normal as it has ever been.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/70603d02d549e66063e2efe00e1d24fe9b9842697cb7dc772b4674f0e3c62fc0.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/37f199e796f1c9d81b90e36e09b9a44cc44ece39b2edcbc0ca7a2ab0b8032df8.gif

        • Icarus62

          Wow :-) Don’t blow a fuse just because your anti-scientific nonsense got totally blown out of the water. It must happen a lot.

          • BBQman

            I am fine, I fully understand what our climate drivers are and the fraudulent claims you make do not rise to the level of proof, sorry:)

          • CB

            “I fully understand what our climate drivers are”

            …then you’re simply lying.

            You have been informed multiple times now that water vapour is not a climate driver, but rather a feedback to other climate drivers… and yet you continue to make the claim.

            Why should you be allowed to do that, Barbie?

            “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

          • david russell

            When CB speaks of lying, I would listen, She is an expert on lying,

          • CB

            “When CB speaks… I would listen”

            lol! You would if you didn’t have so much prancing and flouncing to do?

            “David Russell: I own an oil company.”

            disqus.com/home/discussion/cnbc/oil_prices_fall_on_profit_taking_oversupply_worries/#comment-2624336377

          • david russell

            Would prancing and flouncing include saying things like:

            “David Russell: I own an oil company”

            ?
            ?

            I wonder because I told YOU this, so you are not giving me any knowledge by repeating it ad nauseam. I expect you only do this to annoy me and bore everyone else. In other words, “prance and flounce.”

            You’re just to easy to beat up. You do most of the heavy lifting yourself with your own mouth.

          • CB

            “I told YOU this, so you are not giving me any knowledge by repeating it”

            lol!

            You’re a clever one, aren’t you, Mr. Russell…

            “Large sums of money have been spent on highly successful disinformation campaigns, capitalizing on the public’s reluctance to act on a slowly materializing threat and fully exploiting outliers among climate scientists who downplay the risks. Polls consistently show that more than 90% of climate scientists hold that CO₂-induced climate change is underway and presents serious risks”

            web.mit.edu/vpr/climate/MIT_Climate_Change_Conversation_Report_2015.pdf

          • david russell

            Your quote is a joke, right? Look who it’s by. Bwahahaha.

            Your goofiness never ceases to amaze me.

          • CB

            “Your quote is a joke, right? Look who it’s by.”

            Researchers at MIT? If you think they aren’t reliable, produce a better source of information, please.

            psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

          • david russell

            Researchers?!. Bwahaha. You crack me up.

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Bart_R
          • RealOldOne2

            Just like the goofy president that is going out of office soon, the loony lefties think saying something makes it true. True delusion of elitist socialists. Goofiness, as you say.

          • Wallace Frantz

            David Russell… I had no respect for you but until you wrote that stupidity, I didn’t know that you really are also stupid.

          • david russell

            Here are the authors:

            The composition of the committee was as follows:
            Roman Stocker (Committee Chair) Associate Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
            Adam Berinsky Professor of Political Science Department of Political Science
            Sarah Brylinsky Sustainability Project Manager
            Office of Sustainability Kerry Emanuel Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
            Henry “Jake” Jacoby William F. Pounds Professor of Management Emeritus Sloan School of Management
            Bernadette Johnson Chief Technology Officer Lincoln Laboratory
            Jacqueline Kuo Undergraduate Student Department of Mechanical Engineering
            Christoph Reinhart Associate Professor in Building Technology Department of Architecture
            Elly Rostoum Communications Associate Climate Change Conversation
            Anne Slinn Executive Director for Research Center for Global Change Science
            Geoffrey Supran Graduate Student Department of Materials Science and Engineering
            Tavneet Suri Maurice J. Strong Career Development Associate Professor Sloan School of Management
            Stian Ueland Postdoctoral Associate Department of Materials Science and Engineering

            1, maybe 3, of these guys have any credentials in the field. This is “a committee” — a self described talk group. To me it a hodge-podge. Gimme a break.

          • Wallace Frantz

            David Russell… You forgot to name the real estate broker Donald J. Trump.

            Those names you list have nothing at all to do with an atmospheric CO2 level of 401ppm.

          • david russell

            Our wires must be crossed, my list of names above are the authors of the link CB provided farther up.

            You must be thinking of something else.

          • Sparafucile

            You’re presuming there’s any “thinking” at all. You’re being too generous.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Nope David Russell, my wires are not crossed…. Those names are fine well educated people at MIT who have managed to garner information from scientific communities from around the globe to give their opinions on the global warming issue.

            They personally have nothing at all to do with the rise of atmospheric CO2 to now over 400ppm other than any other human’s carbon footprint…. They do not own, operate or approve of coal fired electrical power plants. .

            That is an excellent article CB posted the link for and your ignorant attempt to smear it is incredible stupidity.

          • david russell

            I didn’t say they were uneducated, I said they didn’t have any credentials in climate science, with 1-3 exceptions. Furthermore, this is a “talk group,” presumably self-organized and unsupervised.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You say you read it David… You must have a reading comprehension disability….. They collected information from highly qualified scientists from all around the globe…

            One does not have to be a scientist to gather scientific information and write an excellent report on a subject.

          • david russell

            Your ignorance on climate science is so vast that you are not in a position to evaluate the MIT Committee referenced by CB. They present no science, but merely warmist talking points. There is not the slightest indication of any science in the document.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I never said the presented science…. They garnered info from scientists on the climate change issue and wrtoe an excellent summary. I disagree with you and you disagree with me…. So?

          • david russell

            ….so says the clueless one (underground aquifers evaporating from global warming, anyone?).

          • david russell

            So I actually started reading the MIT link CB provided. No wonder they don’t have anyone with real climate science credentials (ok, 1 plus maybe 2 more). Because it’s not about the science. This is an committee to create a political movement on the MIT campus…. one to be a moral watchdog for skeptics, just swallowing the ‘consensus science’ (whatever that is) whole.

            Global warming is to become what the Vietnam War was when I went to college.

          • Wallace Frantz

            D. Russell, you wrote, > (“Global warming is to become what the Vietnam War was when I went to college.”).

            How can you be that ate up with the dummies Russell? Global warming is causing exactly what is described in this article we are posting comments on. It is not politics David.

            In addition it is causing many other unsavory things such as drying up rivers, aquifers, lakes due to melted off mountain glaciers and the loss of our precious and most important coral reefs as I explained to you today on another post.

            Global warming is not political David…. If there were no humans on Earth and the atmospheric CO2 level rose naturally from volcanic activity to the 360plus ppm global warming would be occurring as it did 260 and 55 million years ago which resulted in mass extinctions of life…. It was not politics then either Russell… Don’t be stupid.

          • david russell

            You have drunk the Kool-Aid. Your post above is absurd (how can global warming dry up aquifers, which are underground?).

            Your understanding of coral reef life is likely limited to what you read the article. I tried to help you get an understanding with my link to CO2, Global Warming, and Coral Reefs,” by Craig Idso.

          • Wallace Frantz

            David Russell; you stupidly for an adult asked, > (“You have drunk the Kool-Aid. Your post above is absurd (how can global warming dry up aquifers, which are underground?)”).

            Here is a secret David…. Aquifers are fed, or recharged with surface water which seeps down to the underground aquifer.

            If there is not enough recharge water, especially if humans are pumping water from the aquifer they dry up.

            Global warming has melted off mountain glaciers and due to GW dramatic global climate changes have occurred and now there is far less snow packs in mountains such as the Rocky Mountains for one example and rivers and aquifers, lakes are drying up because of it. No Kool-air necessary to understand what is happening David.

          • david russell

            You are just too ignorant to discourse with. As my mother would say, “You are a font of ignorant knowledge.”

            All of your above is made up nonsense. The world has warmed .8C since the late 1800’s. The way you describe it, the earth is close to being a burnt out cinder….. and yet the temperature in Chicago varies 60C every year!!!

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote, > (All of your above is made up nonsense”)…. That is a lie David Russell…

            I made up nothing…. I didn’t write this article or the ones I have posted links for…

          • david russell

            Oh, I’m sure you read this stuff somewhere. It’s still made up nonsense.

          • david russell

            The authors are quite a motley crew. One, maybe 2 others, have some credentials. The whole thing is a self-appointed “talk group.” Geez.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Does that have anything to do with a warming planet or your simplistic ignorant and actually stupid comments about the most important for all life AGW issue? ___ Nope.

          • david russell

            The planet is warming. Bid deal. During this warming period, humans have gone from 1B to 7B, are living longer, healthier, better fed, and safer lives than any humans before. The planet is the greenest it’s been since the LIA. What’s not to like?

            The ignorant one is you. I know the facts. You know how to lie. You seem also to have drunk quite a bit of Kool-Aid.

          • Wallace Frantz

            LMAOff…. Sparafucile gave you an upper vote on that one, nothing else needs to be said…

          • david russell

            One thing needs to be said: You have no perspective. I can think of 5 things off the top of my head the pose a greater threat to humanity than AGW. And AGW if it were a problem could be fixed for a few $mm per year. But it’s not.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Alright David Russell, tell us one thing that is more deadly serious for all life on Earth than the following.

            As of last year AGW has caused the ocean waters all around the globe to warm to the point where our coral reefs are bleaching out so seriously they will not recover.

            That will continue every year from now on as long as the atmospheric CO2 level is higher than the 390 to 400ppm level.

            The coral reefs are the most basic animal life on Earth and the most important for all other life.

            The reason for that is the green plant life of ocean phytoplankton which supply most of our oxygen bloom from live coral reefs.

            When the coral reefs are mostly dead there will not be enough ocean phytoplankton to maintain an adequate supply of life giving oxygen in our atmosphere and ocean waters.

            That has begun now with no stopping in sight. We cannot life with over half of our oxygen level depleted. It will cause the 6th mass extinction of life on Earth. We must reduce the atmospheric CO2 level and allow the oceans to cool some.

            At the current rate of coral reefs bleaching out and dying we may have less than another 5 years before most are dead.

            So tell us what is more serious than that David Russell and there is not one single honest or reasonable argument that it is not now happening.

            Here is one link with a very recent science article on the Great Barrier reef which details what is occurring there and the same thing is occurring all across the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean’s along with seas and gulfs.

            http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/scientists-record-biggest-ever-coral-die-off-on-australias-great-barrier-reef/ar-AAkSwe7?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartandhp

          • david russell

            Coral reefs bleached severely in the el Nino of 1998 …… and did recover.

            No. It will not continue….. as it hasn’t. Corals have been around for hundreds of millions of years …. in much warmer water. They are very hardy.

            You really just mentioned coral reefs.

          • Wallace Frantz

            1998 was 18 years ago David Russell… Why are you trying to argue what is now happening?

            If you read the article I posted for you, you would have noted the scientist who stated coral reefs do bleach and recover but this time the bleaching was very severe and the water is too warm for them to recover.

          • david russell

            Because the are the same…. both el Nino years….. both experienced massive coral bleaching. The past can sometimes be a guide to the future, right?

          • Wallace Frantz

            The most severe El Nino was last year David… El Nino is caused by WARMING Pacific Ocean waters….. Those warming waters are also killing coral reefs as stated in the articles on the subject I have posted.

          • david russell

            You are making my point: El Ninos are natural. They typically cause coral bleaching. They typically are followed by cooling La Ninas.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Your point is El Nino’s cause coral bleaching…. The severe coral bleaching which is now killing our coral reefs is due to continual warming ocean waters all around the globe, not just warm ocean waters in the Pacific Ocean has nothing a tall to do with El Nino’s.

          • david russell

            Incorrect. The North Atlantic is cooling.

          • Wallace Frantz

            So what?

          • RealOldOne2

            “So what?”
            So you said “The severe coral bleaching which is now killing our coral reefs is due to continual warming ocean waters all around the globe.
            David pointed out, as I did, that the North Atlantic is not warming, it is cooling. And not just a little bit. It has lost about half of the heat it had accumulated over the previous 3 decades.
            Bottom line is that the ‘so what’ is that statement is false.

            So are you going to admit that your statement is false? Or are you going to cling to your mistake and turn it into a lie?

            And since this is a science blog, are you going to also explain how the North Atlantic can be cooling if CO2 is the cause of ocean warming?

            If you are interested in science, then you would discuss science, and not just call people liars and post things you can’t back up with science.

            BBQman, david and I are here to discuss science. Please do the same.

          • Wallace Frantz

            The North Atlantic isn’t warming in the winter season you idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “The North Atlantic isn’t warming in the winter season you idiot.”
            I never said it was warming. That was your claim.

            And no, I’m not an idiot. I just know what “anomaly” means. Sadly you don’t, which sums up your lack of knowledge of climate, and reveals why you can’t have a rational discussion on climate related issues.

            You are really embarrassing yourself, and the really sad thing is that you don’t realize it.

            And I’m still waiting for you to explain the physical mechanism of how the cold CO2 in the atmosphere transfers heat into the warmer surface of the ocean.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote > (“North Atlantic is not warming, it is cooling. And not just a little bit. It has lost about half of the heat it had accumulated over the previous 3 decades.”)..

            Got a reference to back that up? In addition; how many coral reefs are in the North Atlantic Waters? The issue and discussion was about coral reefs dying due to warming ocean waters all around the world and I posted several links for articles to back up what I posted.

            You are really old and not smart to boot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You wrong>(“North Atlantic is not warming, it is cooling. And not just a little bit. It has lost about half of the heat it had accumulated over the previous 3 decades.”).. Got a reference to back that up?”
            Yes. I’ve posted it to you a number of times: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20NorthAtlanticOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

            “You are really old and not smart to boot.”
            If you were as good at science as you are at insults, you’d be a force to be reckoned with, but you’re not.

            Btw, I’m still waiting for you to explain the physical mechanism that the cold CO2 in the atmosphere transfers heat into the warmer surface of the oceans.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You and David Russell believe you have a good point… You do not.

            I have correctly stated the ocean waters all around the globe have warmed to the point where it is killing coral reefs and have posted links for articles that back me up. …..

            I have never stated (*every area*) of any ocean has warmed…. Where coral reefs are located it has warmed.

            https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=coral+reefs+dying+in+atlantic+ocean+due+to+warming+waters&qpvt=coral+reefs+dying+in+atlantic+ocean+due+ot+warming+waters&qpvt=coral+reefs+dying+in+atlantic+ocean+due+ot+warming+waters&qpvt=coral+reefs+dying+in+atlantic+ocean+due+ot+warming+waters&FORM=IGRE

          • RealOldOne2

            Now you are playing semantics games in order to stubbornly cling to your mistake/error. Pathetic.

            You said “continual warming ocean waters ALL around the globe”. Is the North Atlantic on the globe? So yes, you were wrong. It’s not like we a picking one specific remote location. An entire ocean, the North Atlantic, has been cooling, significantly.

            You said: “AGW has caused the ocean waters all around the globe to warm.”

            I asked you to explain the physical process of how cold CO2 can transfer heat into the warmer surface of the oceans. I’m still waiting for your explanation.

            You said: “the Arctic Ocean’s sub sea permafrost floor was perforated and great amount of methane was releasing”

            I asked you to please explain the physical mechanism of how CO2 in the atmosphere causes perforation of the ocean floor. I’m still waiting for your explanation.

            Instead of denying your erroneous claim that oceans ALL around the globe have been continually warming, please give your explanations for your above two statements.

          • Wallace Frantz

            It is winter in the North Atlantic now dufus. I am not aware of coral reefs in the North Atlantic…..

            What the discussion was and should be is the coral reefs are dying in the Atlantic Ocean due to warming Ocean waters causing severe coral reef bleaching.

            Not all of the Atlantic Ocean is warming when it is winter season in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere’s for example.

          • RealOldOne2

            “It is winter in the North Atlantic now dufus. … Not all of the Atlantic Ocean is warming when it is winter season”
            Your argument is flawed because the cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean is not a seasonal/winter phenomenon. The cooling has been going on for 10 years! http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20NorthAtlanticOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

            And please learn what an “anomaly” is to save yourself further embarrassment.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Okay the NRTH ATLANTIC is cooling…. The rest isn’t… The coral reefs we are concerned about are in the mid Atlantic regions wacko.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Okay the NRTH ATLANTIC is cooling”
            Good on you for finally admitting you were wrong.

            Now explain how that cooling could be happening for the last decade, since atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing steadily over the last decade.

            And explain the physical process of how cold CO2 in the atmosphere transfers heat into the warmer surface of the ocean. I’m still waiting for you to do that.

          • Wallace Frantz

            No admissions at all wacko, I never said every area of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans was warming.

          • RealOldOne2

            “No admissions at all wacko, I never said every area of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans was warming.”
            Now you’re back to denial of reality of making your erroneous statements by playing silly semantics games. Pathetic.

            You said: “continual warming ocean waters ALL around the globe”. Is the North Atlantic on the globe? So yes, you were wrong. It’s not like we a picking one specific remote location. An entire ocean, the North Atlantic, has been cooling, significantly.
            So yes, you were wrong. And your clinging to your mistake turns it into a lie:

            “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

            You said: “AGW has caused the ocean waters all around the globe to warm.”

            I asked you to explain the physical process of how cold CO2 can transfer heat into the warmer surface of the oceans. I’m still waiting for your explanation.

            You said: “the Arctic Ocean’s sub sea permafrost floor was perforated and great amount of methane was releasing”

            I asked you to please explain the physical mechanism of how CO2 in the atmosphere causes perforation of the ocean floor. I’m still waiting for your explanation.

            Instead of denying your erroneous claim that oceans ALL around the globe have been continually warming, please give your explanations for your above two statements.

          • david russell

            Gee, I didn’t realize it was December 21st in the N Atlantic.

          • Wallace Frantz

            The current weather conditions in the North Atlantic are extremely cold, worse than most winter conditions…. F Off you ignorant bafooon.

          • RealOldOne2

            Wallace Frantz: “F Off you ignorant bafooon”
            The accumulation of empirical science from david and I which shows that you are wrong and don’t know what you are talking about really causes you to blow your stack. Sad.

          • david russell

            The North Atlantic has been cooling for……wait for it………9 YEARS!!!

          • Wallace Frantz

            How many degrees did it cool? LMAOFF

          • david russell

            So you acknowledge that you were twice wrong: a) not all the oceans are warming; and b) the North Atlantic is not cooling just because it’s winter.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I didn’t say all of the oceans are warming liar…. I said warming ocean waters in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans have caused the coral reefs to seriously bleach out and die where they have bleached and that will continue every year from now on.

            I never stated ALL of any ocean has warmed.

          • david russell

            You know then that NOT all the oceans have warmed. And you did say that the North Atlantic was cold because it is winter time there.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Wrong Davis Russell.. All of the oceans have warmed, even the Arctic and Southern Oceans’… I just never said they all have….

            It wasn’t necessary….. I wrote about warming ocean waters which last year had warmed to the point where it was killing coral reefs and that disaster will continue evert year from now on due to an accelerating global warming with a very high atmospheric CO2 level… You deny it.

            So you spend hours in vain trying to show I was not correct yet I posted links for articles that say I am correct. You however are just running your mouth like a village idiot on steroids…… Rave on David Russell.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Wallace is right.
            You are a buffoon……

            “The whole world is warming. The whole world? No! A region in the subpolar Atlantic has cooled over the past century – unique in the world for an area with reasonable data coverage (Fig. 1). So what’s so special about this region between Newfoundland and Ireland
            It happens to be just that area for which climate models predict a cooling when the Gulf Stream System weakens (experts speak of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation or AMOC, as part of the global thermohaline circulation). That this might happen as a result of global warming is discussed in the scientific community since the 1980s – since Wally Broecker’s classical Nature article “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse?” Meanwhile evidence is mounting that the long-feared circulation decline is already well underway.”
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic/

          • david russell

            For sure the North Atlantic is cooling as the AMO enters into its negative phase. This has nothing to do with global warming and is an artifact of natural phenomena that have been ongoing before the industrial revolution.

            There’s nothing in your above that shows anyone is an idiot. That rather makes you … well, a creep.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            David Russel – ” This has nothing to do with global warming”

            The assembled climate scientists of the world – “It happens to be just that area for which climate models predict a cooling when the Gulf Stream System weakens”
            “That this might happen as a result of global warming is discussed in the scientific community since the 1980s”

            Ummmm, who to believe?

          • david russell

            It’s pretty easy to predict the AMO cycles… whether you believe in AGW or not.

            So your point it a dumb one.

          • evenminded

            And what does that mean to a moron like you?

            Have you read what climate scientists understand about this phenomenon?

            Of course you haven’t.

            Your an idiot.

          • david russell

            It means the AMO is moving into a negative phase.

          • evenminded

            So that’s a no then. You have not read about what the experts on the topic state. What a surprise.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            So tell us.

          • evenminded

            Did you look at the link? Of course you didn’t.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            so you can’t tell us. I thought not.

          • evenminded

            What’s the point in trying to tell you anything?

            You’re a mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate ignoramus.

            Thanks for confirming that you have not read what climate scientists state about the phenomenon. One might think that a long term projection that shows a cooling trend in the North Atlantic would give you pause. But of course not.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Ex nihilo nihil venit.

          • evenminded

            You have no competence in math and science, and from that lack of competence, nothing of substance can come.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You keep saying this. Perhaps someone is interesting to read it a couple of hundred more times.

          • evenminded

            Perhaps.

            Given that you continue to repeat your incompetent nonsense, it’s worth repeating your capabilities in math and science.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Well, you keep thinking that and maybe you will get some converts. I’m sure legions of folks out there are waiting for your next “You’re an idiot” insight.

          • evenminded

            Perhaps, perhaps not. The only morons that put any stock into anything that you write are BBQman, who thinks that CO2 can solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F, and RealOldOne2, who thinks that objects cease to emit radiation if they are facing a warmer object.

            Only other idiots think that you know what you are talking about.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You sound like you are about to cry. Does someone need a hug?

          • evenminded

            LOL

            What’s to cry about? I’m just pointing out the facts.

            The fact is that you’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Well, I’d say the shellacking Real Old One gave you on the laws of thermodynamics made me cry… with tears of laughter. He really cleaned your clock.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Which part of his ignorance do you believe?

            The part where he claims that backradiation is not absorbed by the oceans, or the part where he states that bidirectional energy transfers are impossible?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Real Old One mopped the floor with you. No wonder you are grumpy and sad.

          • evenminded

            LOL, given that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus, you’ll have to forgive me for laughing at your idiocy.

            Which part of his ignorance do you believe?

            The part where he claims that backradiation is not absorbed by the oceans, or the part where he states that bidirectional energy transfers are impossible?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Anyone could follow along. You got crunched by ROO.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            At what point in the argument did he “crunch” me?

            Do you believe that bidirectional energy fluxes are possible?

          • david russell

            Still don’t get it, do you? Neither does ROO2.

          • evenminded

            I get the science quite well. You obviously do not.

            Only a scientifically illiterate moron would think that bidirectional energy fluxes are not possible.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Cold CO2 IR cannot warm the warmer oceans.

          • evenminded

            Is the temperature of the oceans higher due to the presence of GHGs, lower, or the same with respect to an earth without any GHGs?

          • david russell

            You seem to think asking question is an argument form.

            It is not.

          • evenminded

            It’s called the Socratic method. If you answer the question you will learn that your logic is flawed.

            Is the temperature of the oceans higher due to the presence of GHGs, lower, or the same with respect to an earth without any GHGs?

          • david russell

            Socrates was really Plato in the literature we have, as Socrates left no writings. Plato’s ontology and epistemology were flawed. But no matter.

            I’ll play: So here’s your question: can a cold object warm a hot object? [second request]

          • evenminded

            The method is called the Socratic method moron.

            I have answered your question, as has RealOldOne2. Surrounding a warm object with a cooler radiation shield will cause the warm object to increase in temperature.

            Do you agree with RealOldOne2 and me on this fundamental scientific fact or not?

          • ROO2

            Anyone could follow along.

            Yay. Another one who’s tinfoil hat reflects no energy.

            Derptastic, do go on.

          • david russell

            Yes, the bluster-response. It’s about all you have left after Real Old One obliterated the “CO2 IR warms the oceans” falsity.

          • ROO2

            Are you suggesting that CO2 radiates energy back to the surface david? Or does your tinfoil hat neither reflect nor radiated any energy?

          • david russell

            In a nutshell, cold CO2 IR cannot warm warmer water.

          • ROO2

            So whether the CO2 is there or not, makes no difference to the water temperature?

          • david russell

            Incorrect. It just can’t warm it.

          • ROO2

            So the water is warmer as a result of the CO2. The more CO2 the warmer the water.

            Thanks, I see what you are saying now.

          • david russell

            All you need to know in you febrile brain is that cold CO2 cannot warm warm water.

            Think of it this way, does an ice cube dropped in a pot of boiling water warm the water?

          • ROO2

            All you need to know in you febrile brain is that cold CO2 cannot warm warm water.

            How much energy does a 15 micron photon convey from:
            (a) a CO2 molecule at 100C; and
            (b) a CO2 molecule at -20C?

          • evenminded

            You’re not very bright David. Even RealOldOne2 realizes that if you surround an object with a radiation shield the temperature of the object that you surround with the shield will increase, even though the shield temperature is lower than the enclosed object.

            You are absolutely clueless when it comes to basic thermodynamics.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            I may be an idiot. Most people just can’t be argued into your position which seems to be that a cold object can warm a warm object.

            You have to be a genius to believe that.

          • evenminded

            Both RealOldOne2 and I came up with exactly the same change in temperature for the object after the radiation shield was put into place.

            I thought you stated that you were able to follow it. Obviously not.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            So you say. Then you agree with ROO that cold Co2 IR cannot warm the warm oceans. In fact it’s the oceans that warm the air and not vice versa.

          • evenminded

            I don’t know.

            Does RealOldOne2 claim that the temperature of the oceans is higher due to the presence of GHGs than without?

            He is saying that a warm object will increase in temperature if it is surrounded by a cooler radiation shield. On that fact he and I agree.

            Do you agree idiot?

          • david russell

            You’ve completely mis-stated ROO’s line of reasoning.

          • evenminded

            I haven’t stated anything about his line of reasoning. I’ve stated that he and I arrived at the same answer.

            We both found that a warm object will increase in temperature if it is surrounded by a cooler radiation shield.

            Do you understand this fundamental scientific fact or not?

          • RealOldOne2

            “I’ve stated that he and I arrived at the same answer. We both found that a warm object will increase in temperature if it is surrounded by a cooler radiation shield.”
            Good, I’m glad that you accept my blanket/radiation shield example ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 ) is correct.

            You are leaving out the reason that the temperature of the warm object’s temperature will increase, which is that the object has an internal heat source which causes energy to accumulate if it can’t be transferred away as fast.

            And if we change the example so that it no longer has the internal heat source, and then add a 255K blanket, the temperature of the object will never increase. It will only decrease. This also shows that your view is wrong, because according to you the 255K object now has an new external Energy-in of 240W/m²(Joules/sec) where it had no Energy-in before the blanket was added. That should increase the object’s temperature, but it doesn’t because the 240W/m² is not a real energy transfer/flow/flux. The only real energy transfer/flow/flux is always and only UNI-directional from the warmer object to the cooler blanket to the even colder surroundings.

            Your 1st & 2nd Law denying view is wrong. It’s sad that you don’t realize that scientific fact.

          • evenminded

            Yes, your final answer for the change in temperature of the object is correct.

            Thank you for providing an example where adding a cold radiation shield to the system increases that temperature of the enclosed object. So might say that the effect of the addition of the cold radiation blanket was to warm the enclosed object.

            Unfortunately, you have caused david russell a bit of cognitive dissonance with your example.

            Everyone knows that the blanket radiates EM energy in both directions. Even your buddy Kristian admits that energy flux is bidirectional.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I did not leave out that there is a heat source”
            You are obfuscating.
            Without the internal heat source the object does not increase in temperature, showing that there is no real energy/heat flow from the colder blanket to the warmer object.

            You lost the argument. Deal with it.

          • evenminded

            I’m not obfuscating at all. In fact, to another commenter I copied and pasted your entire problem statement verbatim. He didn’t like that you found an example where adding a cold radiation shield around an object caused the object to increase in temperature either.

            You have admitted that the blanket emits the same amount of radiation energy towards the object as it does out to space. So, what happens to that energy?

          • RealOldOne2

            Evenminded is once again playing the move-the-pea shell game con when he says: “Even RealOldOne2 realizes that if you surround an object with a radiation shield the temperature of the object that you surround will increase.”

            It’s nice that he accepts that my blanket example is valid and true by citing it, but he moved the pea, because the blanket will increase the temperature of the object if and only if the object has an Energy-in source.

            If you take my same example (found here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 ) but have no Energy-in, and start at the same 255K (18C) object temperature, and then surround it with the blanket, the object will NEVER increase its temperature. The temperature will always and ever decrease, even though according to him it is receiving extra energy from the blanket. Adding the blanket/radiation shield merely slows the rate of heat loss. And the flow of energy is always and only from the hotter object to the cooler blanket to the cooler surroundings. That’s the 2nd Law.

            They know they are wrong. They are merely obfuscating in order to defend their CO2 religion with jihadist zeal.

          • ROO2

            So it does have an effect on its temperature now.

            One does hope that you will make your mind up sooner or later.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            LOL

            You idiot.
            Where do you think all the cold water from Arctic ice melt is going?

            The average global ocean temperature has increased by around 2°F since the early 1900s.

          • david russell

            dsdsfsd

          • david russell

            The ENSO cycles are really not about ocean warming but rather about ocean cooling (from the deep ocean Humboldt current)

          • Wallace Frantz

            David Russell…. You are insane.

          • david russell

            Well, then stop posting to me.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Stop replying with your nonsense to me .

          • Wallace Frantz

            You are being obtuse and ignorant David Russell.

            Now you are being extremely obtuse and ignorant David Russell…. What exactly is your motive?

            You wrote (“No. It will not continue….. as it hasn’t. Corals have been around for hundreds of millions of years …. in much warmer water. They are very hardy.”).

            Post a link for a credible science article that backs up those BSing lies David.

            I poste a current link that says otherwise…

            Then Dr. Michael J. Benton describes in his best selling book, “When Life Nearly Died”, how the coral reefs died due to warming ocean waters and the oxygen level plummeted and the most severe mass extinction of life on Earth occurred.

            And once that disaster began the coral reefs died rather quickly. The coral reefs were also one of the first lives to recover millions of years later.

          • david russell

            I’ve given you the Craig Idso compendium of research on the subject. It’s available on Amazon.

            I’ve read it. You haven’t.

          • david russell
          • Wallace Frantz

            It is far outdated David Russell…. It is not current or relevant information. What is wrong with your mind David? It is truly sad.

          • david russell

            You realize how dopey it sounds for you to claim that a book you’ve never read is outdated and irrelevant, do you not?

          • RealOldOne2

            Thanks for the link to Idso’s book.
            Wallace’s claim that “It is far outdated” is typical climate alarmist denial of reality of any science that doesn’t agree with their CO2 religion. Really pathetic.
            And I notice he is unwilling to discuss his erroneous claim that CO2 causes ocean warming. It reveals that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

          • david russell

            Thank you for all the things you’ve taught me.

          • evenminded

            You mean like how to be a mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate whack job?

            He is the king, and he has taught you well.

          • david russell

            …. so who are you? —- the Queen?

          • evenminded

            No, that would be your title.

            I’m just someone that actually understands mathematics and science that likes to point and laugh at idiots like you.

          • david russell

            Ok….the Court Jester, then.

          • evenminded

            Nah, that would be BBQman.

            Sorry, but only the mathematically incompetent and scientifically illiterate are privileged enough to earn a title. I don’t qualify.

            You remain an idiot.

          • david russell

            Well, get out your popcorn and Junior Mints, because the new President, his chief strategist and proposed new EPA head are going to implement policies that agree with me

          • evenminded

            Political policy has nothing to do with the veracity of science. The fact that you think that political policy could somehow “agree” with your scientific ignorance is a testament to the fact that you are a moron.

            As always, you remain an idiot.

          • david russell

            So you say. It varies from science to science IMO.

          • evenminded

            Your ignorance of basic math and science is rather complete.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            So you say….Ad nauseam. Who are you trying to convince?

          • evenminded

            Yes, I say, and I have proven it.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            So then you are merely deranged, repeating over and over something you’ve proved?

          • evenminded

            You repeat your scientifically ignorant statements over and over. So, I have no problem pointing out that you are a scientifically illiterate moron over and over.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Yes. Deranged. You aren’t trying to convince me (as you couldn’t convince even a genius by calling him a moron) and yet you post to me. Maybe you are trying to convince yourself.

          • evenminded

            I couldn’t care less if I convince you or not.

            It’s enough fun to simply destroy your arguments and prove that you are wrong. I do it all of the time with you. You’re a joke that’s fun to kick around.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            As entertaining as it is to read your repetitive, contentless posts, I’m going to take Real Old One’s advice and ignore your troolery. Bye,bye, Pumpkin-boy.

          • evenminded

            That sounds about right, the Queen will of course submit herself to her King’s will.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            And you are dismissed.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Say hello to your King for me Queeniie.

            As always, you are an idiot.

          • ROO2

            Oh LOL. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            I’d suggest we not feed the troll. He’s just out for a good troll to get people angry and up to his usual totally inappropriate name calling. Lately he has become increasingly unhinged. He’s probably still in the grief anger and denial stages of Hillary’s devastating loss.

          • evenminded

            So the King is coming to the rescue of his Queen.

            Would you like to have me prove that your scientifically illiterate statements are wrong yet again?

            You’re an idiot.

          • Wallace Frantz

            No David Russell…. I do not….. The warming ocean waters now are killing the coral reefs in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean…. The book is about the warming waters in the Pacific Ocean which caused strong El Nino years long past.

            El Nino is not the issue David and the book is irrelevant when discussing what is now killing the coral reefs all around the globe….

            AS the articles I posted for your educational benefit state, it is due to global warming and the ocean waters are going to continue to warm even more and the coral reefs will all die.

            The end result of that disaster will be a rather rapid decline of our atmospheric oxygen level….. Why don’t you stop your obtuse arguing about that very serious issue David Russell? Are you suicidal?

          • david russell

            I read your links.. you didn’t read mine.

            The person who sounds insane is you. But if you actually believe what you are espousing, then we are all doomed. Maybe you just should end it all now and stop being a party-popper for the rest of us.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I’ll make this my final reply to your here David Russell as replying to you is non productive… You are not right in the head.

            1… You argue and quote a book that is about El Nino in 1989 which is an interesting book I am sure. It is not current to what is now occurring in the world’s oceans due to warming ocean waters.

            El Nino is not a cause of ocean water heat. El Nino is the result of Pacific Ocean water warming. El Nino are words used to describe when warm Pacific Ocean water causes a change in the flow pattern of one of the Pacific Ocean currents and the current flows closer to the Western shores of N. and South America.

            At the same time that ocean warming can cause coral reefs to bleach and the bleaching is often of minor nature and the reefs recover over time.

            What has occurred now in al of the world’s oceans is not the same situation that is described in the book you use to argue your false points.

            What occurred last year is the warming ocean waters all around the globe, not just parts of the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean’s warmed so much that coral reefs bleached so severely that the scientists who study coral reefs say they will not recover where they bleached and they agree that will continue every year from now on because of a very high level of atmospheric CO2 and the result of continued ocean water warming as it warmed in 2016.

            There was also a strong El Nino year in the Pacific Ocean in 2016 which has nothing to do to cause warming waters caused by global warming. An El Nino year is a result of warming Pacific Ocean water.

            I posted links for excellent articles that explain it all in detail and quote many scientists. You post a link for a book about El Nino’s and minor coral reef bleaching from years ago which is not relevant to what is now happening to the worlds coral reefs in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean’s, the Gulf of Mexico, Sea of Japan, the Med, etc.

            As the first article I posted stated, the coral reefs bleached so severely last year they will not recover and will die and that disaster will continue every year from now on…

            So give it up David Russell or post links for current articles that say otherwise.

          • david russell

            The last el Nino Idso speaks of is the 1997-98.

            Warming of the oceans is due to the amount of solar energy hitting the planet’s oceans. “Global Warming” has always been about surface air temps…. until the surface air temps stopped cooperating with the warmist dogma. As the air above the oceans is cooler by 1-2C than the ocean surface typically, it’s the oceans that warm the air and not the opposite.

            Ocean heat content is not uniform across oceans. The North Atlantic is not warming. This is odd if CO2 were to blame as CO2 is considered well-mixed in the troposphere.

            El Nino’s are caused not by warm water welling up from the ocean, but rather a periodic slowdown in cold water from the Humboldt Current, as I’ve explained.

            The coral bleaching in the last el Nino was NOT minor. The language at the time paralleled the current hysteria about coral bleaching.

            El Ninos are not in any event caused by AGW. It takes the deep ocean currents hundreds of years to complete a cycle.

            Warming post LIA (1880 to date) is generally agreed to be .8C. This is not melting the glaciers, drying up lakes or sucking aquifers dry.

            Whatever the fate of the corals there’s absolutely nothing we can do today to address the bleaching of the past.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote > (“El Ninos are not in any event caused by AGW.”)….

            An El Nino year is caused by warming ocean waters and global warming this time in Earth’s history is caused by AGW and as the scientists report, the current ocean warming waters’ around the globe is being caused by global warming.

          • david russell

            Your words above, following your quote of me, are the words of an ignoramus. I’ve explained what goes on foe el Ninos and you’ve refused to learn.

            Thus you are both hapless and hopeless.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I have explained what caused an El Nino year…. It is quite simply warming Pacific Ocean waters will cause a ocean current to alter it’s flow and move closer to the Western South and North America coastlines. You are a fool.

          • david russell

            That is 100% wrong. Look it up. It’s caused by a slowdown in cooling Humboldt currren’t waters….deposited in ocean depths hundreds of years ago.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You are a fool David Russell.

          • david russell

            You could be right. However, Wikipedia agrees with me. I checked. You didnt. Who does this suggest might be the fool?

          • david russell

            If you are really interested in coral reefs, this summarizes all the research on them concerning CO2 and Global Warming:

            [I’ve read it twice]

            https://www.amazon.com/CO2-Global-Warming-Coral-Reefs/dp/0971484589

          • Wallace Frantz

            Uhhh, David Russell… That book you posted as your reference, “CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs Perfect Paperback” – was published February 24, 2009….. This is Dec of 2016 David.

            If you want to discuss the issue with some degree of credibility David, try reading the current science papers on the issue. Articles published after September 2016.

          • david russell

            2009 covers the 1998 el Nino and prior el Nino events. I know of no other compendium of research on the subject, but if you do, spit it out.

          • Wallace Frantz

            As I have already stated, 2009 and 1998 or prior were years ago… What is occurring now with the ocean’s coral reefs started in 2016.

            Don’t you understand that 2016 is current and 1998 or prior and 2009 are not current or relevant to the subject?

            For examples; in 1945 there were dozens of large glaciers in Glacier National Park… Now there are less than 24 small ones.

            In 2004 there was thick perennial ice in the Arctic Ocean, now there is none.

            You don’t have a clue of how badly you are making a fool of yourself David Russell.

          • david russell

            You are too far gone down the rabbit hole to converse with. Annoy someone else. Cower in your trailer and pray for salvation from the coming world extinction event. Probably if you haven’t already, don’t breed. What would be the point?

            Oh, and die ignorant.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Haa haa haaa David Russell. .. I see you cannot answer your own stupidity with any honesty or apologies, so you resort to whining…..

            Here David Russell, I will try to help elleviate your ignorance on the coral reef issue with some CURENT 2016 articles on the issue…Read what the scientists, oceanographers and oceanic bio-chemists have to say about it David and wise up. .

            http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat/Coral-Reefs.aspx

            http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs

            http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teaching_resources/education_modules/coral_reefs_and_climate_change/how_does_climate_change_affect_coral_reefs/

            https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=coral+rees+began+dying+in+2016+from+warming+ocean+waters&qpvt=coral+rees+began+dying+in+2016+from+warming+ocean+waters&FORM=VDRE

            Actually David I have not been replying to you… I have replied to your nonsense and lies in the case someone may be reading the comments and tend to believe you are credible… I give the flip side to your flawed agenda.

          • david russell

            Your links were interesting and confirm much of what was in Idso’s book. However they were not really science, but rather conservation blogs.

            For sure rapid changes in temperature will cause coral bleaching. It happened in the last several el Ninos. El Ninos can cause as much as a 3 degree temperature change. These events are natural and in any event cannot be stopped.

            I hope you noticed that there are many causes of coral bleaching due to man and nature.

            What’s missing from these articles is the science of how the oceans warm and become lower pH.

            It is assumed these things are due to man, but for example the ocean is warmed from above by the sun and not by CO2 IR, which cannot penetrate the ocean skin more than a few microns. It is also assumed that human Co2 emissions are acidifying the oceans, so I did a calculation on how much human CO2 emission becomes carbonic acid annually per unit of ocean. Answer: annual human emissions cause 1 molecule of carbonic acid per 107B molecules of seawater (1 to 107,000,000,000).

          • Wallace Frantz

            When they quote scientists it is science stupid.

          • david russell

            That is an example of silliness on your part that may explain yout gullibility

          • Wallace Frantz

            Wrong D. Russell…. An article quotes a scientist who has earned a doctorate in the field of study being discussed and you say it is not scientific discussion…. Wrong

          • david russell

            So scientistS become a scientist.

            Remind me: what did this scientist say?

          • Wallace Frantz

            Read all of the articles.

          • david russell

            So you don’t remember. Me neither.

            FWIW, you posted 2 article links. Generally one refers to 2 as — both, not all.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I didn’t forget anything David Russell….. I posted 3 links, not just 2,, two in one post one in another post.

            In the CURRENT articles among other things scientists stated that GW is causing the ocean waters to warm and that is causing severe bleach out of coral reefs where they will not recover and that will continue .

          • david russell

            3 links, but only 2 articles. If you are accurately reporting then your quote is a tautology. GW is not AGW. As I’ve said now, more than once, AGW warms the air, not the oceans. The oceans are warmed by the sun. CO2 IR cannot penetrate the oceans to warm them. The correct solar energy metric is not TOA, but rather “at the surface,” which means “TOA as mitigated by the atmospheric conditions, typically clouds, but also other aerosols.” A less cloud-covered ocean will receive less solar energy. Very little warming of the oceans can be by AGW (e.g., some minor reduction of conductive cooling).

          • Wallace Frantz

            You incredible lying mellonhead… I have posted three links for three separate articles on the subject. .

            AGW is GW caused by human activity you idiot. GW is causing the ocean waters to warm and the GW is AGW. They are one and the same. GW caused by human activity…

            You cannot possibly be that stupid, or can you?

          • david russell

            Well, the melon head only sees 2 articles and a video link. But no point in quibbling.

            Globall warming for sure warms the earth and global cooling cools the earth. But carbon dioxide IR cannot penetrate the ocean skin which is opaque to CO2s IR radiation band. The ocean is warmed from above by insolation. All other thermal processes at the ocean surface serve to cool the ocean. — latent heat (evaporation), conduction, and net IR (which is outgoing).

          • Wallace Frantz

            The video link has dozens of articles on the subject dingbat.

          • david russell

            I wouldn’t know as I don’t watch suggested video links. Maybe I’ll take a gander.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Who cares what you do? Not I.

          • RealOldOne2

            “GW is causing the ocean waters to warm and the GW is AGW. They are one and the same. GW caused by human activity.”

            As david says, only solar radiation transfers heat into the ocean. Cold CO2 (human activity) does not and can no transfer heat into the ocean.

            You know that you are wrong because you can’t explain any physical mechanism for cold CO2 in the atmosphere to transfer heat into the warmer surface of the ocean. I’ve asked you numerous time for you to explain, and you can’t do it, nor can you link to anyone else who can do it, so just admit that you are wrong.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Ocean waters warm due to GW and or AGW. What you are saying is lies.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Ocean waters warm due to GW and or AGW.”
            Wrong. Heat is transferred into ocean waters warm solely by natural warming. The physical mechanism is high energy solar radiation penetrates up to 200 meters deep into the oceans and the ocean water absorbs the energy.

            AGW, or warming of the atmosphere due to CO2 cannot transfer any heat into the ocean, because the ocean surface is warmer than the atmosphere above it, and because the 15μm wavelength of CO2 ‘backradiation’ can only penetrate ~3 millionths of a meter into the ocean.

            “What you are saying is lies.”
            No, what I am saying is scientific fact. I’ve challenged you numerous times to explain the physical process of how cold CO2 in the atmosphere can transfer heat into the warmer ocean, and you just ignore my challenge, because you have no explanation, because there is no explanation, because thermodynamics and physics prevents it from happening.

            The only one doing any lying here is you, by clinging to your mistakes and stubbornly refusing to admit them. You are behaving just like a doomsday cult zealot who has been proven wrong but wont face reality and admit it. It’s quite pathetic.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You are an idiot… Atmospheric greenhouse gases trap rising heat which includes daytime absorbed heat which rises from the surface of the ocean water at night…. Global warming causes a warmer planet including land and ocean water.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You are an idiot”
            It’s obvious that I’m not the idiot here.

            We are talking about ocean warming, the transfer of heat into the ocean. Nothing you said describes a physical mechanism of how cold CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can transfer heat into the warmer ocean. Your ramblings are merely repeating your climate alarmist dogmas.

            Explain the physical mechanism of how cold CO2 in the atmosphere transfers heat into the warmer ocean.

          • evenminded

            the 15μm wavelength of CO2 ‘backradiation’ can only penetrate ~3 millionths of a meter into the ocean

            Given that EM radiation can only be absorbed by, transmitted through, or reflected by matter, what happens to this backradiation that has penetrated into the oceans? Is it absorbed, transmitted, or reflected?

            You appear to be quite clearly indicating that it is not transmitted or reflected, so that would mean that it is absorbed.

            Thanks for confirming that backradiation is absorbed by the oceans.

          • RealOldOne2

            Ah, it’s the denier of the 1st & 2nd Law of Thermodynamics who claims that the cold atmosphere transfers 324W/m² of energy/heat into the ocean, which is about twice as much energy/heat as the Sun transfers into the ocean (168W/m²). Your claim is so ignorant that even a 10 year old knows it’s not true.

            OK, I’ve shown that you are wrong dozens and dozens of times, but since I am a patient gentleman and I do everything I can to help slow learners, I’ll show why you are wrong once again.

            The 15μm CO2 ‘backradiation’ from the cold atmosphere transfers no heat/energy into the warmer ocean because the 15μm radiation from the ocean surface has a higher radiative pressure/force, therefore the heat/energy transfer is only in one direction from the warmer surface of the ocean to the colder atmosphere, satisfying the 2nd Law.

            The only 15μm heat/energy that could be transferred into the uppermost 3 micron deep surface of the ocean would be if the source of that 15μm radiation was at a higher temperature than the surface of the ocean. But the CO2 from the atmosphere is colder than the surface, so the only transfer of heat/energy is the one-directional transfer from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. Simple thermodynamics.

            The only way you can prove your claim is correct is to experimentally demonstrate a working ‘backradiation’ heat/energy collector that collects twice as much heat/energy as a solar collector and collects just as much heat/energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime. How’s it coming? Ah, not so well. Don’t feel bad, no one in the history of the planet has been able to do it either. Those pesky Laws of Thermodynamics.

            “Compare it with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG! That’s all there is to it.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

            Every single observation from every single backradiation collector experiment agrees with me that energy/heat flow is UNI-directional from the warmer surface of the Earth to the colder atmosphere.

            Every single observation from every single backradiation energy/heat collector experiment disagrees with your claim that the 324W/m² is a real energy/heat flow.

            Now for the simple thermodynamics/heat transfer example of an object with and without a blanket, which proves you wrong. It shows that your wrong understanding results in the creation of energy out of nothing which violates the 1st Law. The 1st Law, Conservation of Energy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
            The same example shows that your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law too because your wrong view has the cause of the increase in temperature of the object being a transfer of heat from the colder blanket to the warmer object. The 2nd Law says that heat is only transferred from a warmer object to a colder object, and not the reverse.

            Givens:
            – We have an object with a surface area of 1m².
            – The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
            – the object and the blanket are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
            – The S-B constant, σ=5.67x10⁻⁸.
            – Temps rounded to whole numbers.
            – The blanket is very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are equal, 1m².
            – The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m² within the object.
            – The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
            – The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.

            So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m². The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.

            So the ONLY energy that exists in our system is 240W/m², PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy in our system is 240Joules/sec.
            At initial thermal equilibrium the 240Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.

            We now surround the object with a blanket/radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system.

            The blanket now receives the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is radiating away from the object so the internal energy of the blanket begins to increase which causes the temperature of the blanket to increase. As the blanket temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m² of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.

            The blanket temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the blanket will then be 255K(-18C).
            At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the blanket must equal the Energy-out from the blanket to space which must equal the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.

            The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
            q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==> Th⁴=(240/5.67x10⁻⁸)+255⁴
            ==> Th=303K

            That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
            1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec), which is the only Energy existing in our system.

            2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the blanket) remains 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the blanket to space is 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).

            3) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy/heat flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/blanket and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/blanket to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says:

            “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155.

            4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.

            Now your wrong understanding is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m² (Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder 255K blanket to the warmer 303K object. So your wrong understanding now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).
            You have created 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.

            Your wrong view has 480W/m² (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the ONLY energy/heat source of our system.
            You have once again created 240W/m² out of thin air.

            Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because you have created energy where there was none before, so conservation of energy has been violated.

            And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law as you have the cause of the increase in object temperature being the transfer of heat from a colder object (blanket) to a warmer object.

            QED, My understanding is correct and your understanding is wrong.

          • evenminded

            You just claimed that 15μm wavelength of CO2 ‘backradiation’ penetrates ~3 millionths of a meter into the ocean while it is being absorbed by the ocean.

            Thanks for playing.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            Flagged for your incessant “You’re an idiot.” comment.
            There is no excuse for your childish adolescent name calling tantrum, even if you are angry at not being able to refute the science everyone shows you which proves you wrong.

            Once again you are unable to refute the science that I posted which proves you wrong.

            “You just claimed that 15μm wavelength of CO2 ‘backradiation’ penetrate ~3 millionths of a meter into the ocean while it is being absorbed by the ocean.”
            Like the dishonest person that you are, you took my comment out of context, quoting only part of what I said. You selectively left out “AGW, or warming of the atmosphere due to CO2 cannot transfer any heat/energy into the ocean, because the ocean surface is warmer than the atmosphere above it”

            Just as I said, and just as the 1st and 2nd Laws say, only if the 15μm wavelength source is at a higher temperature than the surface of the ocean can 15μm wavelength transfer energy/heat into the uppermost 3 micron deep surface of the ocean.

            And as I said, the only way you can prove that the 324W/m² of ‘backradiation’ is a real energy/heat flow is if you can experimentally demonstrate a working ‘backradiation’ heat/energy collector that collects twice as much heat/energy as a solar collector does, and collects just as much heat/energy during the night time as a solar collector does during the daytime.
            And you can’t do that. Nobody can, because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which says that heat only flows in one direction, from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object.

            “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155.

          • evenminded

            Yes, keep crying to your moddy.

            What would you say to someone that stated this:

            “‘Energy’ per se might move in both directions. ‘Heat’ (net energy) ALWAYS and ONLY flows spontaneously from hot to cold, high potential to low potential.”

            I have refuted all of your arguments. You are unable to comprehend basic thermodynamics. All objects at finite temperature radiate energy in all directions.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            evenminded: “You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged. You’re on full tilt now. Sad.

            “I have refuted all of your arguments.”
            Wrong. You have refuted none of them. You just totally ignore this comment, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 , which destroys your reverse/anti-thermodynamic nonsense.

            “You are unable to comprehend basic thermodynamics.”
            You have it exactly backwards, as my comment linked to above proves.

            “All objects at finite temperature radiate energy in all directions.”
            Yes, but they only transfer energy to objects which are at lower temperatures. 2nd Law.

            You have been totally discredited. All you’re doing now is embarrassing yourself. You have nothing on this issue until you refute the science in my comment which proves you wrong. Now to further embarrass you and expose your reverse/anti-thermodynamics.

            “‘Energy’ per se might move in both directions. ‘Heat’ (net energy) ALWAYS and ONLY flow spontaneously from hot to cold, high potential to low potential”

            First, it’s nice that you quote Okulaer/Kristian, to show that his articles have credence. But you are cherry picking again. That out-of-context quote does not support your claim that ‘backradiation’ transfers more energy/heat to the Earth’s surface than solar radiation does.

            You didn’t give the source, ‘On Heat, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Atmospheric Warming Effect, https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/on-heat-the-laws-of-thermodynamics-and-the-atmospheric-warming-effect/ , because people would have gone to that article and saw that it agrees with me
            and shows that you are wrong in your ‘backradiation’ atmospheric energy transfer claim.

            Later in the article Okulaer uses the Carnot heat engine which

            “provides us with a nice example for explaining how our atmosphere forces the mean global temperature of Earth’s surface to equilibrate at a much higher level than a pure solar radiative equilibrium would. … we have come to the point where we will explain how the atmosphere in fact insulates the solar heated surface. First of all, it has got nothing to do with thermal radiation. It has everything to do with the mass of the atmosphere. In two ways. 1. The atmosphere having mass means it’s got a ‘heat capacity’, meaning it can be heated. It can gain temperature. Space can’t.A lowered temperature gradient means reduced heat loss. Simple as that. So replacing space with an atmosphere will make less energy escape the surface, (still) constantly heated by the Sun, per unit time. Leading to natural warming to regain balance between in and out. – ibid

            That agrees with my blanket example, which shows that you are wrong.

            And you cherry pick an Okulaer quote, but your entire bi-directional energy flow claim is totally destroyed on this Okulaer article: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/

          • evenminded

            Flag away idiot.

            “All objects at finite temperature radiate energy in all directions.”

            Yes, but they only transfer energy to objects which are at lower temperatures.

            So, what happens to the radiation that is emitted from a colder object B towards a hotter object A.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Flag away idiot. … you unbelievable moron … You’re an idiot”
            I just did, again, and I will continue to do so until you can stop throwing your childish tantrum and show some modicum of respect, since that is the standard that the author/moderator set in his comment here.

            You are just angry that my comment which you can’t refute and dodge, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 , has shown you are wrong in your ridiculous claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more heat (324W/m²) to the Earth’s surface than the Sun ( 168W/m² ) does.

            Sorry that doesn’t refute my comment. You lost. It’s reality. Deal with it.

          • evenminded

            Keep flagging idiot. Maybe your moddy will come save you.

            I have refuted all of your nonsense.

            “All objects at finite temperature radiate energy in all directions.”

            Yes, but they only transfer energy to objects which are at lower temperatures.

            That means that the blanket is radiating the same amount of energy towards free space as it is towards the object that it is surrounding.

            So, what happens to the radiation energy that is emitted from a colder blanket towards the hotter object?

            As for Kristian’s statement, he is obviously admitting that energy fluxes are bidirectional.

            You and I get exactly the same result for the blanket example you unbelievable moron. All objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature including the blanket, just as described by Planck.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Keep flagging idiot. … You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged. I will.

            “Maybe your moddy will come save you.”
            I don’t need a moderator to same me. My correct science which I have presented and which you can’t refute is all I need.

            And no, your comment doesn’t refute my comment http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 which proves you wrong.

          • evenminded

            Why are you still crying to your moddy?

            The blanket is radiating the same amount of energy towards free space as it is towards the object that it is surrounding.

            So, what happens to the radiation energy that is emitted from a colder blanket towards the hotter object?

            You have no answer, because you know that you have contradicted yourself.

            You’re an idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re an idiot.”
            Flagged.

          • evenminded

            Keep crying to your moddy.

            It doesn’t change the fact that you contradicted yourself.

          • RealOldOne2

            “that you contradicted yourself”
            No, I didn’t. I’ve explained it to you many, many times, but you are too ideologically blinded and scientifically illiterate to understand it.

            Refute the science in my comment which proves you wrong: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054

            You can’t. That proves you have lost this argument, a quite ridiculous argument that the cold atmosphere transfers more energy/heat (324W/m²) to the surface of the Earth than the Sun does (168W/m²).
            Even a 10 year old knows that is not true. It’s quite sad that you don’t.

            Every time I prove your 2nd Law & 1st Law denial wrong, you have a similar meltdown into a frothing name calling rage. Chill out dude. Go learn some science.

          • evenminded

            You haven’t explained it.

            It’s a simple question.

            The blanket is radiating the same amount of energy towards free space as it is towards the object that it is surrounding.

            So, what happens to the radiation energy that is emitted from a colder blanket towards the hotter object?

            You have no answer, because you know that you have contradicted yourself.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You haven’t explained it.”
            It’s all explained in the radiation example in my comment here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054

            Your wrong view violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, so it is wrong.
            You lost the argument, an no amount of handwaving, obfuscation and denial will change that fact. Bye.

          • evenminded

            Thanks for confirming that you are unable to answer such a simple and basic question.

            The blanket is radiating the same amount of energy towards free space as it is towards the object that it is surrounding.

            So, what happens to the radiation energy that is emitted from a colder blanket towards the hotter object?

            You have no answer, because you know that you have contradicted yourself.

          • ROO2

            The 15μm CO2 ‘backradiation’ from the cold atmosphere transfers no heat/energy into the warmer ocean because the 15μm radiation from the ocean surface has a higher radiative pressure/force

            Good grief. I see your understanding of quantum mechanics is non existent.

            Both of your 15μm photons are identical and carry the same quantised energy, yet you claim one exerts a greater radiative pressure than the other? That’s bollox.

            You also seem to be claiming that exerting a radiative pressure on an emitter results in less energy being emitted by some undefined mechanism that prohibits molecular relaxation or changes in atomic electron states.

            It’s akin to claiming that shining a torch of a light bulb will make is duller.

            Only an idiot would make such a claim, you never disappoint on that front.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Lie again David Russell….. I posted 3 links and one has dozens of articles on the subject. AGW is GW caused by human activity.

          • RealOldOne2

            “As of last year AGW has caused the ocean waters all around the globe to warm”
            Please explain how “AGW” has caused the ocean waters all around the globe to warm.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Explain it to you RealOld One? Get serious. I will not go back to what AGW is and why it has occurred and what it has done to our climate….. You have read it many, many times and don’t believe it….. Instead you tell lies about it.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I will not go back to what AGW is and why it has occurred and what it has done to our climate”
            I figured you were too ignorant of science to understand it. Thanks for confirming it.

          • RealOldOne2

            “As of last year AGW has caused the ocean waters all around the globe to warm”
            No, it hasn’t. Ocean warming is natural, caused by solar radiation, not ghgs in the cold atmosphere. That’s science. That’s reality.

            And btw, is the North Atlantic Ocean part of the “ocean waters all around the globe”? Seems that your alleged AGW missed that ocean, as it has cooled over the last decade and lost about half of the heat it had gained over the previous three decades: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20NorthAtlanticOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

            WattsUpWithThat Wally?
            Does CO2 physics not happen there? Why not?

            The evidence is stacking up that you are peddling rubbish scare propaganda from your climate alarmism religion.

          • Bart_R

            Huh.

            How does that work in your mind?

            Solar radiation increases, and the oceans warm. Solar radiation decreases and the oceans warm.

            Could it still be solar radiation at work warming the oceans? Doubtful, but still possible.

            The upper atmosphere cools, and the oceans warm.

            Could it still be solar radiation at work warming the oceans? While cooling the stratosphere?

            Not without some exotic quantum tunneling that has neither theoretical nor observational support.

            Your argument is bogus. Like when you claim CO2 is plant food above 300 ppmv.

          • RealOldOne2

            “How does that work in your mind?”
            It works because solar radiation is the only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean.

            “Your argument is bogus”
            No, my argument is sound. Your argument that cold CO2 in the atmosphere transfers heat into the ocean is what is bogus.
            Explain the physical process by which cold CO2 in the atmosphere transfers heat into the ocean. You can’t, because it doesn’t, except in your delusional mind.

            “Like when you claim CO2 is plant food above 300ppmv.”
            Still denying the CO2 is plant food above 300ppmv. You are denying hundreds of peer reviewed papers documenting thousands of experimental real world data which shows that CO2 does act as plant food at atmospheric levels above 300ppmv. You can find papers and data here: http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php Pick a letter like R, pick a plant like rice, http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/o/oryzas.php and see the increases in plant growth documented by dozens of peer reviewed papers. Since you’re such an expert denier of reality, I’m sure you’ll find the 3 out of 300+ experimental results that show a negative growth and delusionally claim victory.

            Deny away, it’s what you do best.

          • Bart_R

            You misstate my argument. Small wonder you’re so confused.

            Every molecule of CO2 is isolated among many molecules of other gases in well-mixed atmosphere. Each molecule in a well-mixed gas is known to have a temperature determined by its energy state, different from the mean temperature of that gas.

            CO2 in air can be much hotter than that average. Indeed, the CO2 that releases radiant energy is much hotter than the average. Do you not actually understand the fundamentals of thermodynamics at all?

            A better example is the extremely high atmosphere, where molecules are very dispersed. The thermosphere is known to be remarkably hot, yet to gain heat both from the chill vacuum of space and from the cooler stratosphere.

            Similarly, a magnifying lens made of ice can concentrate the sun’s rays to start a fire.

            All sorts of net cold things confer radiant energy to warmer things, warming them further still.

            You’ve had this explained to you time and again over the years. You’ve never addressed the ice lens, the thermosphere, or the individual temperature of CO2 molecules, but always dodged.

            Just like you’ve dodged the questions about your knowledge of how to distinguish hormones from food. CO2 promotes plant hormones ethylene and gibberellins. The higher the level of CO2, the higher the hormone response. As this hormone response rises, plants divert nutrients and vigor from amino acid and mineral concentration toward growth, resulting in lower crop nutrient density.

            The Idsos are mere repackagers of others’ research, third party cherry-pickers and cut-and-pasters. They are not trained botanists, they are not trained biochemists. They have no relevant papers of their own. Papers in this field can be found first hand in bona fide journals.

            http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/9/1119.short for example.

            Parallel to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 278 μmol mol−1 in AD 1750 to the current ambient level of 348 μmol mol−1, there have been overall decreases in leaf nitrogen content and stomatal density from 144% and 121%, respectively, in AD 1750 to 100% today of herbarium specimens of 14 trees, shrubs, and herbs collected over the last 240 years in Catalonia, a Mediterranean climate area. These decreases were steeper during the initial slower increases in CO2 atmospheric levels as compared with the relatively faster CO2 increases in recent years. The declines in leaf N content and stomatal density have also been reported in experimental studies on leaves of plants grown under enriched CO2 environments..

            Nitrogen content is indexed in amino acids, ie plant proteins. That’s 44% loss in crop protein concentration that has been known by botanists for a quarter century. True, botanists choose to look on the sunny side of life, but you ought understand that means you’re getting more sugar and cellulose and less protein in every bite of fruit and vegetables.

            Increasing growth beyond natural levels is what you get when you pump an animal full of steroids. It’s the Lance Armstrong version of ‘food’.

            Negative growth? Not a claim of mine at all.

            Raising CO2 levels is the moral equivalent in the plant world of mixing steroids with food.

            And you don’t have a problem with that conduct.

          • RealOldOne2

            My, quite the Gish gallop there!

            “You misstate my argument”
            No, I misstated nothing.

            “Every molecule of CO2 is isolated among many molecules of other gases in well-mixed atmosphere. Each molecule in a well-mixed gas is known to have a temperature
            CO2 in air can be much hotter than that average. Indeed, the CO2 that releases radiant energy is much hotter than the average. Do you not understand the fundamentals of thermodynamics at all?”

            Yes, I do understand the fundamentals of thermodynamics. Your endless scientifically illiterate claims (which you stubbornly refuse to admit) have shown that you are the one who doesn’t understand thermodynamics and most other science.

            So this is your latest fantasy to explain away your denial of the 2nd Law, in your claim that the cold atmosphere transfers 324W/m² of heat to the warmer surface of the Earth/ocean.

            Sorry, but what you wrote is pure nonsense and rubbish. But I’ll give you a chance to support your BS claim with empirical science. This is going to be fun.

            Your claim raises a number of questions which you must answer in order to show that it is correct:

            Bart_R: “Every molecule is isolated among many molecules of other gases in a well-mixed atmosphere”
            Ques. #1: How are the molecules isolated? Explain.
            Ques. #2: Are they isolated from physical contact (collisions) with the other molecules of the same gas and other gasses?
            Ques. #3: Are they Isolated from thermal contact with the other molecules of the same gas and other gases?

            Bart_R: “Each molecule in a well-mixed gas is known to have a temperature determined by its energy state, different from the mean temperature of that gas.”
            Ques. #4: Does each different gas (N₂, , O₂ , CO₂ , Ar, etc.) have a different mean temperature?
            Ques. #5: How (method & instrument) is the temperature of each molecule of each different gas determined?
            Ques. #6: If each molecule has a different temperature, what is the maximum, minimum, mean, range, standard deviation of the temperatures of the molecules of each different gas, if the bulk temperature of the portion of the atmosphere is say 0°C?
            Ques. #7: Do the molecules remain at their different temperatures indefinitely?
            Ques. #8: If they don’t remain at their different temperatures indefinitely, then how do their temperatures change over time?
            Ques. #9: If they don’t remain at their different temperatures, after a period of time do they eventually reach a common/uniform temperature?
            Ques. #10: How is the energy state of each molecule determined?
            Ques. #11: How does the energy state of each molecule change over time?

            Bart_R: “CO₂ in air can be much hotter than that average. Indeed, the CO₂ that releases radiant energy is much hotter than the average.”
            Ques. #12: When you say “the CO₂ that releases radiant energy”, do you mean that not all of the CO₂ molecules release radiant energy?
            Ques. #13: When you say “the CO₂ that releases radiant energy”, do you mean that different CO₂ molecules are at different temperatures?
            Ques. #14: How much hotter is “much hotter” than the mean temperature, if the mean temperature is say 0°C.
            Ques. #15: What is the temperature distribution, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation of the temperature of these “much hotter” CO₂ molecules?
            Ques. #16: Do the CO₂ molecules remain at that “much hotter” temperature indefinitely?
            Ques. #17: If the CO₂ molecules do not remain at that “much hotter” temperature indefinitely, how does the temperature of the CO₂ molecules change over time?
            Ques. #18: Do these “much hotter” CO₂ molecules collide with molecules of other gases?
            Ques. #19: If these “much hotter CO₂ molecules collide with molecules of other gases, what happens to the temperature of the CO₂ molecules?
            Ques. #20: If these “much hotter” CO₂ molecules collide with other molecules, how quickly do they collide?
            Ques. #21: Do these “much hotter” CO₂ molecules transfer radiant heat to the molecules of the other gases?
            Ques. #22: If these “much hotter” CO₂ molecules transfer radiant heat to the molecules of the other gases, what happens to the temperature of the other molecules.

            If what you claim is true, it will be easy for you to give simple answers to all these questions.

            If you don’t answer these questions, it will mean that you can’t answer them, no matter what dodge/excuse you give, and it will prove that you are just blathering BS and exposing your ignorance of science like you usually do. I’ll be waiting for your answers.

          • Bart_R

            You claim Gish gallop?

            Do you even understand what the phrase means?

            You demanded an explanation of a physical process. The simplified physical process was outlined for you. You chose to be boggled by a physical process description more involved than, “magic happens”.

            And your response is a litany of mere JAQing, when you yourself never address the questions asked you.

            So, tell us, who has credentialed your understanding of thermodynamics?

            Which university awarded you a degree in Physics or Engineering, at what level, on what course work, on what practicum, on what thesis paper?

            Who were your thesis examiners?

            Here’s a primer for you that addresses your list of questions: http://puccini.che.pitt.edu/~karlj/Classes/CHE2101/Shell/Ch9_Ideal_gases.pdf

            Since this is the most elementary level of understanding of thermodynamics of mixed gases required to discuss the topic mathematically, I’m sure you’ll find it adequate, and agree it restates my simplified explanation merely in more detail and with more formalism.

            Pay what you owe.

          • RealOldOne2

            OK. Just as I said, you are spouting nonsense, and your answer to all those questions is “magic happens”. It fits with the rest of your pseudoscience.

            “Gish gallop”
            Nope, that’s just a dodge to avoid answering my questions. Every one of those questions is on-topic and relevant to your silly claim.

            And no, your “primer”, http://puccini.che.pitt.edu/~karlj/Classes/CHE2101/Shell/Ch9_Ideal_gases.pdf , does not support your silly claim. It says absolutely nothing about CO₂ being
            “much hotter than the average” of the other gases in the atmosphere with it.

            So I’ll ask you just one question.
            If the bulk temperature of the atmosphere is 0K, what is the mean temperature of those “much hotter” CO2 molecules?

          • Bart_R

            There we see, more deliberate straw man misstatement, as always with you.

            Your questions are addressed with a simple reference to a single chapter in a sophomore textbook, while you seem to not be able to grasp the principle of applying the general to the particular.

            Play silly games on your own time.

            Your model treats the atmosphere as if it were a homogeneous solid; as anyone knows air is a mixed gas.

            And your ‘just one question’ about the temperature of CO2 partial pressure in a well-mixed atmosphere at 0K?

            There’s no such thing as an atmosphere with a ‘bulk temperature’ of 0K. What a maroon.

            Pay what you owe.

          • RealOldOne2

            Sorry, no straw man misstatement, but you did catch a typo. Of course I meant 0°C, as my original questions #6 and #14 stated. So no more dodging and answer my single question. It’s the core of your latest silly denial of the 2nd Law and your delusional claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does.

            Question: If the bulk temperature of the atmosphere is 0°C, what is the mean temperature of those “much hotter” CO2 molecules?

            That question is NOT addressed in your link.
            So answer the question.

          • Bart_R

            Wow. A typo. And you admitted to it! That’s so much progress. For you.

            Look, you took mere minutes to reply to a link containing a chapter of a sophomore textbook on material you are clearly unfamiliar with. It takes months for second year university students familiar with the subject to study that chapter, and you are not as qualified as a university student, so you cannot be taking this subject seriously.

            I have no time for jokers who pass themselves off as experts.

            You neglect to furnish, for example, enough information in your question to make it possible to answer. You don’t even seem to understand what information is needed to address the question you intend, and as I don’t pretend to be a mind reader, I’m not going to keep guessing what other “typo” in your head is going on there with the question you might mean to be asking.

            Read the freaking textbook. Do the problems at the end of the chapter. Show your work. Post that. When you do, people can evaluate your skill level and comprehension, so we can figure out where the holes in your grasp of the topic are biggest, and might be able to work on helping you out.

            Pay what you owe.

          • RealOldOne2

            “A typo. And you admitted to it! That’s so much progress. For you.”

            You’re projecting again. I always admit to my mistakes, because I’m a sane rational adult. You are the one who has never admitted to a single mistake, even though I have pointed out dozens to you. Some of them, like your ignorant “CO2 tops out the ‘plant food’ category at 300ppmv” statement, are documented here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

            “It takes months for second year university students familiar with the subject to study that chapter.”
            Yeah, today’s dumbed down for leftists education system isn’t what it was in my day. My 5 decades of professional science experience, including teaching climate change classes which included atmospheric constituents at a major US university have made me very familiar with that material.

            I went through the whole chapter and saw that it said nothing of you pseudoscience you are trying peddle that CO2 molecules are warmer than other molecules around them in the atmosphere. So quit dodging answer the question:

            Question: If the bulk temperature of the atmosphere is 0°C, what is the mean temperature of those “much hotter” CO2 molecules?

          • Bart_R

            Bwahahaha.

            Always good for a laugh, at least.

            Your question amounts to what’s the average of 0, vegetable, and X?

            It can’t be answered, because it is incomplete. Identify the missing variables. You do know what they are, right?

          • RealOldOne2

            “average of 0
            Congratulations. You unknowingly stumbled onto the correct answer to my question, If the bulk temperature of the atmosphere is 0°C, what is the mean temperature of those “much hotter” CO2 molecules?

            The CO2 molecules are at the same temperature as the N2 , O2 , H2O, Ar, and other trace gases. That’s because within about 1 nanosecond from when a radiatively active gas is excited by absorbing radiation from the warmer surface of the Earth, they collide with the 99+ surrounding molecules and give up that energy to those other gas molecules. That happens over 99.999999% of the time, because the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit a photon is about 1 second, per a PhD physics professor at Princeton Univ. – http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html

            Your fantasy fizziks that CO2 molecules are “much hotter” is shown to be pure BS.

          • Bart_R

            Happer!

            Always good for a laugh.

            You know you have to take a drink when Happer’s name is mentioned by a denier, right?

            Which I guess would make you very inebriated.

            How long before that CO2 molecule encounters a new photon, did you say?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Happer!
            Since you can’t refute the science that proves your ridiculous “the CO2 that releases radiant energy is much hotter than the average” fantasy wrong, you make an ad hominem attack.

            Sorry, you lost the argument.

          • Bart_R

            Heh.

            Not really.

            That was just the diversion.

            Look up thread. See if you can spot the actual counter-argument.

            You’ve just told us that the much hotter CO2 (the one possessed of an extra photon) has imparted its energy to 99+ cooler neighbors that had no way to capture that photon’s energy before.

            Every additional CO2 molecule in the mix gives energy to 99+ other molecules every second that could not before have captured that energy.

            Now, the way you’d phrased your question, you could have gone with ceteris paribus, or gone with a newly introduced CO2 molecule, with or without photon; there’s really endless variants on what you could be asking. But since you never tire of rehashing your old tricks, it was a fair bet you’d be going with this one.

            Congratulations, you’ve proven my argument.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your delusional rant!

          • Bart_R

            You’re the one that proved every second sees CO2 transfer heat energy from that photon of IR it captured to 99+ other molecules.

            If not for that molecule of CO2, then those 99+ other molecules wouldn’t have that energy.

            That’s new thermal kinetic heat energy you’ve just proved CO2 from fossil waste emissions caused.

            And you don’t even see it yet.

          • BBQman

            Excuse me for interrupting, but why would the CO2 molecules not be the same as the bulk temperature, after it receives all of the Suns energy that it can store, it has no choice but to acclimate to the bulk. Or did I miss something, I mean, BratR seems to believe that some unknown force has built into each CO2 molecule a tiny perpetual furnace, does BratR know something everyone else does not, like magic maybe!!

          • Bart_R

            Asking actual questions relevant to the topic is interrupting?

            Interesting way to redefine interrupting.

            The reason CO2 molecules are different from N2, O2 and Ar in the atmosphere has to do with what’s called the Greenhouse Effect (GHE). CO2, being a Greenhouse Gas (GHG), is opaque to photons in the infrared (IR) range, unlike the bulk of molecules in air.

            Picture a flyspeck on your windshield. You can see through the windshield, but not through the flyspeck. The more flyspecks, the more you can’t see through your windshield. GHGs have the same sort of effect on photons of IR as flyspecks have on visible light. You may want to clean that truck so you don’t crash.

            So if you don’t have a CO2 molecule, that photon would sail clear through the bulk of molecules in air, causing no warming, because uncaptured photons don’t warm things that don’t capture them. Capturing a photon warms a molecule. (This is all being simplified a lot, because RealOldOne2 uses Physics from the 1800’s before people understood a lot about light and molecules.)

            There you have it: in one sample, with no CO2, there’s no warming by the photon. In the other sample, using Happer’s figures, there are 99+ collisions every second that transfer the heat from that one CO2 molecule with the captured photon to the bulk of molecules. Every collision, the CO2 molecule loses roughly half of the extra heat energy the photon gave it to the molecule it’s colliding with (again, greatly simplifying). The warmer CO2 is giving heat to the cooler bulk molecules near it. They in turn collide 99+ times a second each, so the average CO2 molecule with a captured photon is always warmer than the average bulk molecule.

            If you want a more accurate, truer picture of the quantum mechanics of heat transfer, I recommend Eu, Byung C. “Kinetic theory and irreversible thermodynamics.” NASA STI/Recon Technical Report A 93 (1992): 24498.

          • BBQman

            So how does the CO2 molecule retain its heat while swimming around the bulk atmosphere which is a lower temperature?

            Especially When CO2 has only 1/2,500th the power of water vapor in the overall environment.

          • Bart_R

            Retain?

            No, no. That’s the point. 99+ times a second, the CO2 molecule passes along the heat that it gets from the IR photon to its neighbors.

            We’re approaching the point that for every two natural CO2 molecules there’s another, unnatural one from fossil. That CO2 molecule means some of the IR that the other two CO2 molecules didn’t capture now is captured — 50% more heat going to those 99+ molecules every second.

            The CO2 molecule doesn’t retain its heat, because energy is neither created nor destroyed. But that CO2 is in a whole river of IR, dipping its paddle into the stream to take on new photons as often as it can. Add another CO2 molecule, you add the capture of more heat energy.

            Especially when CO2 has the power to raise the level of water vapor in the overall atmosphere, because the Dew Point rises as temperature rises, and as the Dew Point rises in height, the volume of water vapor in air increases to the third power. The more powerful water vapor is, the more it amplifies the power of CO2 to warm the atmosphere.

          • BBQman

            CO2 has no power, it is more like a sponge and there is nothing perpetual about it, the inordinate quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere brings CO2 to the bulk temperature with ease after CO2 levels of 345 ppm or more.

          • Bart_R

            It’s the photon that has the power. Those photons in the window water vapor won’t capture, or in the atmosphere above the Dew Point where there is so much less water vapor than average, are what use CO2 to heat its neighbors 99+ times a second.

            You do understand how averages work, right? Average water vapor in air is 4,000 ppmv, about ten times the average concentration of CO2 now.

            But water vapor near the surface can be 250 times that 4,000 ppmv, which means water vapor above the dew point averages 4,000/250 or only about 8e ppmv. Water vapor is around 20 times more efficient than CO2 as a GHG, but 8e times 20 is only 160e, and 160e is only one fifth of CO2e’s 400 ppmv. Above the Dew Point, CO2 rules.

            And the Dew Point level? That’s controlled by CO2.

            And your arbitrary 345 ppmv? Myth.

          • BBQman

            CO2 does not have the power to create heat or stop its dissipation into the a natural sink or the upper atmosphere, by the time CO2 reaches vertical levels above the higher humidity zones near sea level, it becomes just Another harmless part of our ecosystem, the same climate drivers we had 10 thousand years ago are the same drivers we have today.

            We have around 500 trillion tons of rain a year which regulates our climate, and CO2 is like putting one grain of salt on an apple to change the flavor, which is impossible.

            I urge you to stop looking so hard at the trees, take a few steps back and see the forest. Try to quantify all of the components that make up the atmosphere and their effects on the other components, and don’t stop until you have gotten to the outer reaches of our galaxy.

          • Bart_R

            Argument by mere contradiction is logical fallacy.

            Argument by mere assertion is logical fallacy.

            Red herrings are logical fallacy.

            Cherry picking is logical fallacy.

            Exhortation is logical fallacy.

            Rain isn’t a gas, therefore isn’t air.

            Why are you running away from the truth of science? What scares you so much about the truth?

            Is it that you have to pay what you owe?

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Bart_R

            Relative humidity is the wrong metric, or the right metric if you look at the inverse. Why the inverse?

            Of course relative humidity drops as temperature rises. The surface area of water to evaporate is more or less fixed, the volume of air based on the height of the water column increases as a cube as the height rises. Dynamic equilibrium pressures would be toward lower relative humidity.

            Sadly, NASA’s Relative Humidity data graph is stitched together from multiple satellite sources with a near complete turnover and new methodology in 1998. This isn’t especially an issue, as relative humidity has so many calibration points from other sources.

            However, absolute humidity and water column height are also measured by the same system, and the break in water column height in 1998 is a step discontinuity, indicating you cannot validly compare pre-1998 to post 1998. Further, this is an effect that is largely correlated to lattitude, and in 1998 the satellites added more poleward data, effectively lowering the average water column height measure.

            Thanks for your contributions.

          • BigWaveDave

            Especially when CO2 has the power to raise the level of water vapor in the overall atmosphere, because the Dew Point rises as temperature rises, and as the Dew Point rises in height, the volume of water vapor in air increases to the third power. The more powerful water vapor is, the more it amplifies the power of CO2 to warm the atmosphere.

            How much heat did it take to vaporize the water and where did theat heat come from?

          • Bart_R

            Excellent question!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lzWpMfYIuM

            Katherine Hayhoe has a wonderful point about questions. When they get asked, people can take them away and look for answers, and be prepared to be asked more questions later.

            Water vapor feedback: initial CO2 forcing forms much of the heat used to vaporize water as a feedback; this water vapor causes forcing that is in the same direction as the CO2 effect, making it a positive forcing. More CO2 is forced from solution in water by additional heat from CO2 and water vapor. This is why when you look at ice cores you find heat often leads 10% of CO2 rise, but 90% of heat rise follows the positive CO2 feedback.

            For specific heat (enthalpy) of vaporization of water? https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/water-acids-and-bases/water-as-a-solid-liquid-and-gas/a/specific-heat-heat-of-vaporization-and-freezing-of-water has a great primer.

            Thanks for asking.

          • RealOldOne2

            “why would the CO2 molecules not be the same as the bulk temperature”
            You are correct, they are at he same temperature. Bart claimed that the CO2 molecules are “much hotter” than the surrounding 99.9+% of the molecules. But when asked how much hotter, he can’t answer because they aren’t hotter.

            Bart is just making stuff up and obfuscating by derailing a macro thermodynamic problem (his claim that the cold global atmosphere actually transfers more heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does) by discussing individual molecules & single photons. This is a standard obfuscation tactic to hide the fact that they have lost the argument.

          • BBQman

            So, what might the endgame be for BartR, does he work in an industry that enjoys green energy tax credits and government subsidies?

            His points are almost always off topic, and he does not show even a tiny bit of respect for those who disagree with him, it’s sad.

          • RealOldOne2

            Yes, he’s very sad, as are the other peddlers of their false pseudoscience CO2 climate alarmist religion.
            They’ve called out the SkS “Crusher Crew” to bully ( http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html ) us here because we continue to expose that their religion is false. It is evidence that we are effective.

          • BBQman

            “Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated “Crusher Crew” where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

            Ha ha, this is rich, Crusher Crew…wha ha ha ha ha, is that what these guys like CB, Robert, jmac, evenminded, Anaussieinswitzerland and the rest are, they couldn’t crush a Junebug, they don’t even understand the topic of discussion most of the time and unsuccessfully try to run us down their dead end RAT HOLES.

          • ROO2

            To be fair I’m not sure they would waste their time with ReaOldOne2 who thinks his tins foil hat reflects no EM, and you who thinks that the planet is magnetically heated.

            Your Dunning Kruger wrapped up in a different from is most hilarious.

          • BBQman

            ROO2, are you the Captain of a Crusher Crew, or Romper room crew?
            The planet is not magnetically heated, the sun heats it. Electromagnetic energy primarily drives our Equatorial tilt and orbital eccentricities.

          • ROO2

            ROO2, are you the Captain of a Crusher Crew

            No, you have been single-handedly crushed, along with your votebot.

            The planet is not magnetically heated, the sun heats it.

            The Sun heats it to an average global temperature of -18C. Basic physics.

            Electromagnetic energy primarily drives our Equatorial tilt and orbital eccentricities.

            Yet science clearly shows that it is the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn than cause the eccentricity, that it is the gravity of the Moon and the Sun on our tides that causes the precession, and gravity yet again that results in changes in obliquity.

            All determined by Milutin Milanković on gravitational effect and before the evidence on climate that much of the effects was available.

            You seem somewhat confused with your “Electromagnetic energy” though, at least your tin foil hat makes a nice Faraday cage.

          • BigWaveDave

            The Sun heats it to an average global temperature of -18C. Basic physics.

            No, it is your basic mistake!

            Earth loses energy to space at an average temperature of -18C. That has nothing to do with Earth’s surface temperature.

            The sun heats parts of the surface to temperatures higher than 60C, with no help from ghgs.

          • ROO2

            Earth loses energy to space at an average temperature of -18C.

            Indeed, which is there were no IR active gases in the atmosphere would be the surface.

            You’ve just described the GHE.

            One small step for Derp, no change whatsoever for mankind.

          • BigWaveDave

            Indeed, which if there were no IR active gases in the atmosphere would be the surface.

            You’ve just described the GHE.

            One small step for Derp, no change whatsoever for mankind.

            No. You are still making your mistake by myopically limiting your understanding of water vapor’s role to only one similar to your imagined role for CO2 (i.e. calling WV a ghg) and ignoring sensible and latent heat storage in hydrosphere, lithosphere and atmosphere.

          • ROO2

            Earth loses energy to space at an average temperature of -18C.

            Which part of your own statement do your not comprehend?

            IR is the only mechanism by which the planet cools to space. As you correctly state the planet radiates at an avearge temperature of -18C, which radiates the same amount of inbound energy we receive from the Sun from the surface through the atmospheric window and cold upper atmosphere.

            In the absence of GHGs all energy would need to be radiated from the surface only. This would results in an equilibrium surface temperature of around -18C.

          • BigWaveDave

            In the absence of GHGs all energy would need to be radiated from the surface only. This would results in an equilibrium surface temperature of around -18C.

            Only if the surface was a blackbody.

          • ROO2

            Only if the surface was a blackbody.

            “Emissivity in the wavelengths of interest for the earth’s radiation is generally very close to 1. “

            https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/emissivity-vs-wavelength-various-substances2.png

            So, around -18C it is then.

          • BigWaveDave

            “Emissivity in the wavelengths of interest for the earth’s radiation is generally very close to 1. “

            So then you agree. The Earth’s surface is not a blackbody.

            But, that doesn’t really matter, because not only are large parts of the Earth’s land surface heated directly by the sun to temperatures much higher than 48C and ocean surfaces to higher than 15C, the atmosphere cools by means other than by radiation. Solar energy that reaches the surface and penetrates oceans (and doesn’t get used by a plant), is thermalized as either sensible heat with an increase in temperature sort of like a blackbody might, or as latent heat in water by melting ice or in water vapor by evaporating water or subliming ice, with no blackbody-like corresponding increase in temperature from heat added to change state.

          • ROO2

            So then you agree. The Earth’s surface is not a blackbody.

            Incorrect, it is effectively a blackbody and can be considered as such. The difference in emissivity is trivial on the effect of the planets -18C average temperature in the absence of a greenhouse effect.

            But, that doesn’t really matter, because not only are large parts of the Earth’s land surface heated directly by the sun to temperatures much higher than 48C and ocean surfaces to higher than 15C

            Incorrect, the Sun’s energy would only be able to maintain ocean surface temperatures at around 1C near the equator, outside of tropical latitudes all of the worlds oceans would be icebound.

            http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/co2-main-ct-knob-lacis-sci10.pdf

            the atmosphere cools by means other than by radiation

            It seems you still have not got a grasp of the fundamental concept that for a stable climatic global average temperature, the energy inbound from the Sun matches that energy radiated to space.

            This is a top of the atmosphere consideration. You can juggle around energy within the system as much as you like, but the TOA dictates whether or not there is an energy imbalance and hence whether there is warming or cooling.

          • RealOldOne2

            “unsuccessfully try to run us down their dead end RAT HOLES.”
            That’s exactly what they do. And they are so ideologically blinded and duped that they don’t even realize that they are harming their “cause” more than they are helping it.

            Everyone except them sees that their childish name calling proves that they can’t refute the empirical science that we post which proves them wrong. The “Crusher Crew” are a sad lot, like all reality-denying fanatical doomsday cult zealots are.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “they couldn’t crush a Junebug,”

            Heard from OOPIT recently?

          • BBQman

            Seems like you Got Crushed Crew guys failed, wait till Trump sets up the new government, the swamp will be drained, no more EPA, climate science grants, tax credits or subsidies.:)

            And Trump also canceled the new $5 billion AIr Force One Project, more to come, Thank God we now have an Alpha Leader!

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Yep, he really showed us.

            He’s already started to drain the swamp by hiring all those Washington insiders to come in and clean up the mess left by all those Washington insiders………….oh.

            He’s already announced his continuing support for the UN, NATO and accepted that AGW is real just like he said he would…………oh.

            He’s also announced that he will be repealing Obama Care as soon as he gets into office, except for all the good bits………….oh.

            Well he”s definitely going to follow through on his Mexican Wall commitment by building a fence…………….oh.

            At the very least he’s following up on his promise to get tough on American manufacturers that export jobs by giving Carrier $7,000,000……….oh.

            Yep, a real Alpha leader..

          • BBQman

            Let’s see, Trump has served in office how many days now, geezzz you are jumping the guns Anaussieinswitzerland, we will see by May 1st or sooner who is right…patience grasshopper.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Quite right.

            He hasn’t even been sworn in and he’s already disowned just about every promise he made to you deplorables to dupe you into voting for him.

            BTW – How do the workers at Boeing feel about his promise to create American jobs in the wake of the cancelled AF1 project?

          • BBQman

            Any day that taxpayer dollars are saved by canceling any corrupt or wasteful project is a good day for the sovereigns, I really don’t care how those workers feel. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e5f6ee62f852be8446be33ea9bc550a6712f8a7a30c32ddfb69def27755839e2.jpg

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            So you are ok with Trump abandoning both his campaign pledges and American workers.

            Duly noted for future reference.

          • BBQman

            Your false premises & Projecting are so unbecoming, you should consider your choice of words before inking them, your word game posts will live forever, in infamy, or maybe just on a thumb drive at dusty old warehouse, and forever on the net……. Your words will always be there, are those words of your’s the type of stuff you want your descendants to read?
            Prepare for the next 30 plus years to be colder like it was in the northern hemisphere from 1789 to around 1815, this will happen as a result of recent electromagnetic forces from the sun that have influenced the flow & direction of our outer core liquid current.

            Uranus was in the wrong position to bleed off the effects, Saturn, Neptune and Jupiter were on both sides and behind the sun and were no help either, dress warm!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfd6660cee2ecc95bc1e2f65c2a7f6310e61fb1eef2ff0c2f72d95f953c51468.jpg

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “Prepare for the next 30 plus years to be colder like it was in the northern hemisphere from 1789 to around 1815,”

            Really?

            So 2017 will be colder than the 20th century average?

            Are you actually prepared to nail your colours to the mast and stand by this prediction?

            I assume you will now come up with some weasel words that you think will give you wriggle room to avoid any commitment to a fixed result because you know full well that it won’t.

            BTW – When my descendants are weighing our words at least when they read mine they won’t be thinking to themselves “Idiot, didn’t he know there’s no apostrophe in “yours”?

          • BBQman

            And CO2 will continue to rise for a while longer anyway, that is because CO2 lags temperature, always has..

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Hang on a second.

            Are you saying that global temperatures won’t drop because CO2 is continuing to rise and this will dominate climate?

          • BBQman

            No, Global temperatures are dropping now, but it will take a bit more time for the CO2 levels to start dropping. CO2 has nothing to do as a climate driver. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16d037d178ce04080d5db7c787e8c258508ced962d834efa691cf10465bbf563.jpg Temperatures can and do drop faster then CO2 can follow, organically produced CO2 only parallels rising temperatures not falling temperatures.

          • Bart_R

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcmCBetoR18

            Organically produced CO2?

            Myth debunked.

            Salby’s graph?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:72/normalise:12/scale:1.85/offset:0.3/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12

            Myth debunked.

            Don’t think these are being posted for you. Everyone knows you’ll never accept the truth, it’s not in your nature. But you’re a great cautionary example for others.

            Oh, and you may want to look into geopolymer cement. It’ll help you build bridges that don’t fall down quite as fast. Cures in 24 hours. Four times as chemically resistant. Twice as strong. Cheaper than OPC.

          • BBQman

            You are jumping the gun a bit there BartR, after reviewing your video and other presented evidence, it has becom clear, that your information is nothing more then opinions, and in no way debunks any of my facts.

            Also keep in mind that Man only occupies around 3% of the total landmass on earth, and only has mass transportation at 1/6th of that land mass, so out of 57.5 million square mile of land mass, only 287.5 thousand square miles are spewing large quantities of CO2, that is only 1/200th of the overall land mass spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, if we go by world wide square miles including the oceans, which is 197 million square miles, it is only 1/685th of the earth’s surface spewing CO2, which negates your information, man only produces around 3% or less of all CO2.

          • Bart_R

            No, really. Consider geopolymer.

            It’s 70% cheaper than OPC.

            Think of how much money you could pocket while making the world safer.

            And remember, I don’t post my replies for you; you’re a lost cause and everyone knows that. I post my replies to show off what a lost cause you are, by dangling the lowest of low-hanging fruit in front of you, the easiest, most digestible science, to hold you up for mockery by others when you inevitably deny and double down.

            I’m not wasting my time trying to convince you. I’m showing people how to walk away from your infinite regress.

            https://youtu.be/0lzWpMfYIuM

            Collect what you’re owed.

          • BBQman

            Mark Twain was right about people like you, I will no longer stoop to your level of discourse, be well.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/320c20b36ed3b5b3af14b09ff186d9bed86d23cea74b90340fd9845146ab30ca.jpg

          • Bart_R

            Exactly the reason I never argue with you. You’re being held up as an example, so people can see how silly they’d look if they did as you do.

            Pay what you owe.

            And geopolymer.

          • Bart_R

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/70893402b759bc67831e442b3fbaef81a9b84620fdc46d7e427758bbc9fbeefd.png

            Oh look. Petty revenges from the small-minded.

            Something really crazy is happening in places beside the Arctic, it seems.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:72/normalise/scale:1.85/offset:0.3/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12

            Speaking of, in context the Arctic death spiral shows remarkable correlation with CO2 levels and global temperatures. If you also look at the Antarctic, you see a more wildly variable spike in sea ice levels, as ice floes from the continent collide with changing ocean patterns. Record highs and record lows for sea ice caught between a continent collapsing and a sea churning.

            And the guys promoting fossil? Still not emotionally out of kindergarten.

          • babyangel

            I KNEW IT !! i knew that Barthalomew is your full name !

          • Bart_R

            Do you mind me asking, why is the average temperature of the Moon’s surface so much colder than the average temperature of the Earth’s surface?

            Setting aside any influence from oceans on Earth, the difference is very large, even though clouds keep out a third of the energy from the Sun compared to the Moon. Here’s some hints: it’s not due to gravity or convection.

          • babyangel

            well let me see i think the moon doesnt have a magma core like the earth does with lava and such 100+ miles under the surface ? and the earth has an atmospherre which affects the temperatures alot ?

          • Bart_R

            Thank you so much for the courtesy of answering my question.

            The magma core and lava and such make less than 1/1,000th of a degree difference to the average temperature of the surface of the Earth.

            Earth’s surface temperature is largely affected by the atmosphere, you’re quite right there.

            The water vapor, CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere explain all the difference in surface temperature between the Moon and the Earth, and CO2 explains almost all the cray-cray happening in the Arctic.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:60/normalise/scale:2/offset:0.3/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:60/normalise/scale:0.7/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12

            Oh, and I know you’ll like Katherine Hayhoe:

            https://youtu.be/0lzWpMfYIuM

          • BigWaveDave

            4 min into this crap , already puking at the thought that this is being passed off as Science of any sort other than Political. A very long time and only ten min in. BarTard

          • Bart_R

            The power of Pro. 6:16-19 in action.

            Everything you do, and are about to do has been foreseen. Your actions don’t matter. The world saw you coming, and has moved past you. You are used as a cautionary example to others; the more you write, the more how much is wrong with you becomes clear.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            OK.
            So you are saying that, despite rising CO2 levels, 2017 will be cooler than the 20th century average.

            I have copied this exchange and will remind you of it over he course of the next year.

            If, of course, temperatures trend on the same increasing rate as they have for the last 45 years I am sure that you will acknowledge that you are wrong and the collected scientific knowledge of the world’s universities and meteorological organisations was correct.

            If you are right I will happily admit that it is all down to magnetic convolutions and the other orbital crud you keep rattling on about.
            Deal?

            I hope you are right but then I also hope that Santa is going to bring me a new Tesla S for Christmas. Both are extremely unlikely.

          • Robert
          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Yes, you wonder if his expressed desire to use his own plane and charge it back to the American tax payer could have anything to do with the decision.

          • jmac

            He has changed his name to “I was banned from Media Maters”. :)

          • Bart_R

            Endgame?

            Pfft.

            I’m to the right of you, remember. Anti-subsidy. Against the over $5.3 Trillion in subsidy (a quarter of that in the USA alone) globally to fossil. Against lesser subsidies to others. Against tax credits at all. Against distortionary taxes. Where there are two choices with the same outcome, against the one involving more government. Against foreign adventurism. Against state-funded religion.

            Well, more to the point, in favor of Fair Market Capitalism and minimal government.

            On the founding principle that the fastest way to honest ends is the truth, that’s why I don’t try to game the audience with propaganda, flattery, games and ploys.

            Tell the truth. Shame the devil.

            So the really crazy thing happening in the Arctic? That’s the consequence of your fossil waste dumping. You dump fossil waste because you get the Nanny State to cover your waste disposal fees for you. If you had to pay scarcity rents for weathering and lignifying to dispose of your fossil wastes, you’d dump less of them, and there’d be no problem.

            Why do you hate Capitalism?

            And why should I respect anyone who hates Capitalism?

          • Bart_R

            You’ve already said that CO2 exchanges heat 99+ times a second with other molecules, kinetically.

            You know CO2 captures IR in the form of photons those other molecules cannot capture, so is the warmer side of the collision.

            Putting those two things you know together, you know higher CO2 concentration leads to warmer air as outgoing IR from the Earth’s surface is slowed on its way out to space.

            Pay what you owe.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Non-exited CO2 molecules collide with N2 and O2 (molecules which cannot radiate IR) and a transfer of energy takes place … which, in some cases, causes the CO2 molecule to radiate off the excess energy of the N2 or O2 molecule. So, CO2 can actually cool, in some cases. Unfortunately, this occurs mostly above Antarctica when the sun doesn’t shine.

          • Bart_R

            Indeed, where the ratio of non-excited CO2 molecules is vastly higher compared to CO2 molecules, such as the upper stratosphere over the poles and at night, that phenomenon has some significance. In the thermosphere, it may even dominate, where other molecules might be very energetic compared to non-excited CO2.

            However, in the troposphere, it is a vanishingly small part of the overall dynamic equillibrium, where excited CO2 molecules efficiently warm neighbors, as William Happer contends, 99+ times a second.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Even the use of the word, “temperature” is inapplicable to a single molecule, as ‘temperature” is defined as the average kinetic energy of a group of molecules …

            Average kinetic energy of molecules is measured in taking the temperature of the molecules in motion. Molecules with a high temperature have a greater kinetic energy than molecules with a low temperature, because the higher the temperature the faster the molecules move.

            Kinetic Energy – Chemwiki

            chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State…/Kinetic_Energy

            Temperature (sometimes called thermodynamic temperature) is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a system. Adding heat to a system causes its temperature to rise.

            Temperature — from Eric Weisstein’s World of Physics

            scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Temperature.html

          • evenminded

            Which has a higher temperature?

            The air in the room that you are sitting in, or the same number of molecules moving through space with identical velocities, e.g. in the same direction at a speed of 1/2 the speed of light?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Catch up to it, stick a thermometer in it, and report back to us your observations. Oh, that’s right, one-trick pony, you don’t “do” observations.

          • evenminded

            You have zero depth of knowledge.

            It’s a simple question, do you know how to answer it or not?

          • RealOldOne2

            Notice how he derides you for not answering his questions, but he dismisses questions to him ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035752113 ) out of hand.

            The peddlers of climate doom are quite good at hypocrisy.

          • ROO2

            Notice how he derides you for not answering his questions, but he dismisses questions to him

            Notice? Do you mean by your above link, to a post responding to somebody completely different to evenminded?

            It seems you have not heard the medication time bell again. It’s not the first time.

          • RealOldOne2

            You are correct, “temperature” is a thermodynamic term which is a macro concept. Even if you look at it from a microscopic perspective you end up dealing with the average values of the individual molecules.

            “Chap. 2 Some Concepts and Definitions – 2.2 Macroscopic vs. Microscopic Point of View … Consider a system consisting of a one cubic inch volume of a monatomic gas at atmospheric pressure and temperature. This volume contains approximately 10²⁰ atoms. To describe the position of each atom, three coordinates must be specified; to describe the velocity of each atom, three velocity components must be specified. Thus, to completely describe this system from a microscopic point of view, it would be necessary to deal with at least 6 X 10²⁰ equations. Even with a large digital computer, this a quite hopeless computational task. However there are two approaches to this problem that reduce the number of equations and variables to a few that can be handled relatively easily in performing computations. One of these approaches is the statistical approach in which, on the basis of statistical considerations and probability theory, we deal with “average” values for all particles under consideration. … The other approach that reduces the number of variables to a few that can be handled is the macroscopic point of view of classical thermodynamics.” – ‘Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics’ textbook, p.18

            Then consider if you include molecules which also have rotational and vibrational motions and frequencies in three dimensions that adds many times more equations and variables to consider.

            Lest the peddlers of the CO2 climate religion pipe in that it can be done, note that the above considers a one cubic inch system. The system we are considering is the entire atmosphere, which is about 4.2x10¹⁸m³ or about 2.6.10²³ cubic inches, so we are up to ~10⁴⁵ variables and equations. Perhaps we should turn them loose, and we wouldn’t have to be bothered by their ranting and raving on blogs like these.

          • ROO2

            One of these approaches is the statistical approach in which, on the basis of statistical considerations and probability theory, we deal with “average” values for all particles under consideration.

            Finally you embrace bi-directional energy transfer. It’s been a long time coming but I’m glad you have at last understood some basic science.

            Bravo! 😉

          • evenminded
          • Robert

            Many comady acts have a partner as a straightman; he should team up with timecubeguy.
            Or maybe one of the plethora of denialist abounding ……

            +1 !

          • ROO2

            “The Sun and the moon are the same size, thy look the same size because they are the same size. The moon is actually a self illuminating translucent disc not even made out of solid matter”

            This is great. It’s like (:s), RealOldOne2, and Lincoln Rhyme have formed a consensus position.

          • RealOldOne2

            Flagged for violating author/moderator’s stated policy:
            Tom Yulsman: “If you want to keep commenting here, show at least a modicum of respect.”

          • ROO2

            Well, that is a decision for Tom to make, and there is no disrespect in that comment, only fact.

            Let me summarise your and your buddies positions.

            Maltow (:s) – the Moon landings were faked.
            You – shining a torch on a light bulb makes it dimmer. There is no energy reflected by a mirror, lazer range finding, direction and velocity measurements are witchcraft, radar detection is the work of the devil. [There’s plenty more if Tom wants more of a laugh, just ask]
            Lincoln Rhyme – supplying energy to a perfectly insulated vessel will not result in the temperature going up.

            That’s a fair summary of you and the people that you have upvoted on disqus.

          • ROO2

            You find that disrespectful? I cannot see why.
            It seems to be an apt statement.
            We have you that states that a mirror refects no EM energy;
            Maltow (:s) that states categorically that the moon landings were faked; and
            Lincoln Rhyme that claims supplying energy to a perfectly insulated body would not result in the temperature increasing.

            It nicely summarises the “science” of you and your cohorts.

          • RealOldOne2

            “We have you that states that a mirror reflects no EM energy”
            I know that you are extremely angry because I have repeatedly exposed your scientific illiteracy, but that is no excuse to tell lies like that.
            I have never stated what you claim. I have explicitly stated for a long time that EM waves can be cancelled and reflected. Here is an example back in 2015 where I said it:

            ” “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html Waves can cancel or reflect back” – http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/07/ban-ki-moon-pushes-global-warming-treaty/#comment-2407229248

            In fact you are the one who was ignorant of reflection of EM waves. When I pointed out that that the most effective blanket was one with the lowest emissivity, which means it absorbs and emits the least EM energy, so it is reflected back to the source, you said: ROO2: “I’m sorry. How does the emissivity of an object have any bearing whatsoever.

            That nicely summarizes your ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer and explains why you deny the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

          • ROO2

            I have explicitly stated for a long time that EM waves can be cancelled and reflected. electromagnetic waves carry the energy. Waves can cancel or reflect back

            Then it would be simplistic for you to explain what happens to the energy during a cancelled wave in order to satisfy the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Here’s your example:

            The Suns light reflects off the surface of the moon. Two identical photons travel along the same path but with a time delay between them. They both have the same wavelength, say 15 microns, and therefore each carries 0.083 eV of energy.

            The first photon is reflected by the surface of the moon and, according to you, cancels the photon following behind.

            Where does the 0.166 eV of energy now reside that you have just cancelled in the vacuum of space?

          • RealOldOne2

            No point in discussing anything with a dishonoest person. Admit to your serial impersonation of me: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3011348524

          • ROO2

            “Here’s your example:

            The Suns light reflects off the surface of the moon. Two identical photons travel along the same path but with a time delay between them. They both have the same wavelength, say 15 microns, and therefore each carries 0.083 eV of energy.

            The first photon is reflected by the surface of the moon and, according to you, cancels the photon following behind.

            Where does the 0.166 eV of energy now reside that you have just cancelled in the vacuum of space?”

            Stumped I see. It’s always strange that backers of pseudoscientiifc gibberish cannot offer any scientific support to their unscientific gibberish.

            You lose. Bad luck. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            There you go with your serial dishonesty.
            I never said that. Your claim that I stated that “a mirror reflects no EM energy” is a lie, and you won’t admit to telling it, so you tell more lies. Sad, sad, sad.

            Poor, poor, dishonest serial impersonator Scooter Dana: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3011348524

            So sad that you continue to troll me just because I have repeatedly exposed your scientific illiteracy. It’s realitiy. So sad that you can’t face reality.

          • ROO2

            When I pointed out that that the most effective blanket was one with the lowest emissivity

            Ah, yes. Your “thought experiment” which had a blockbody radiation reflector that reflected no incident EM.

            How we laughed at that one! 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            “Ah, yes. Your “thought experiment”
            Nope, my pointing out your ignorance of emissivity was before I did the blanket example that showed your denial of the 1st & 2nd Laws. That’s the problem you have, being a serial liar, you can’t remember when you told which lie.

            “How we laughed at that one!”
            Laughter exposing your insanity, because you have never been able to refute my blanket example which shows that your ludicrous claim that the cold atmosphere is the primary source of thermal energy being transferred to the Earth’s surface violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

          • ROO2

            Nope, my pointing out your ignorance of emissivity

            Oh my, this just get better and better. My understanding of emissivity is aligned with that of Planck who states:

            “We shall now introduce the further simplifying assumption that the physical and chemical condition of the emitting substance depends on but a single variable, namely, on its absolute temperature T. A necessary consequence of this is that the coefficient of emission depends, apart from the frequency and the nature of the medium, only on the temperature T.”

            In your pseudoscientific world emissivity is not dependent upon temperature. A blackbody radiator with an emissivity of 1, when placed next to another identical body of the same temperature drops to an emissivity of 0, as you claim they radiate no energy at each other.

            The magic world of RealOldOne2 where by placing a same temperature object next to another results in a black body changing into the most reflective of mirrors.

            I’ve not laughed so much in ages. Tell us more about this bizarre parallel universe that occupies you poorly educated head. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            “Oh my, this just get better and better”
            Yes it does, as you expose more and more of your scientific illiteracy and doomsday cult behavior.

            You are demonstrating your cult behavior of delusionally denying reality by spinning new webs of obfuscation and lies in order to deny the reality of your previous ignorance of the fact that emissivity was relevant to a thermal radiation problem. Planck’s simplifying assumption does nothing to erase your self-admitted ignorance that emissivity is important to a radiative heat transfer problem.

            “In your pseudoscientific world emissivity is not dependent on temperature.”

            That’s a lie. I have never stated that nor has anything I’ve said show that to be the case.

            “A blackbody radiator with an emissivity of 1, when placed next to another identical body of the same temperature drops to an emissivity of 0, as you claim they radiate no energy at each other.”

            Another lie. I’ve never claimed that they don’t radiate at each other. I just make the accurate statement that there is no transfer of energy between them because their radiances and radiative pressures are equal. I have shown you that this is consistent with the explanation of a physics textbook:

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            What is it about “energy flow ceases” that you don’t understand?

            Your recovery CO2 climate cult brainwashing would be greatly sped up if you would have some therapy sessions with a good cult deprogrammer. He might even be able to prescribe some meds to help with your delusional denial of reality. It might help overcome your fantasies in your head ascribing things to me that I have never said nor are in fact reality.

            I feel bad for you that your denial of reality is so severe that you are denying your previous ignorance of the fact that emissivity is an important aspect of how a blanket works. Stare at this image and read it over and over 100 times: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/423d820faf51558d8514717de24ee8105c574b6cc45acac0c3b7f7ee743085df.png

            “I’ve not laughed so much in ages”
            Your laughing at my exposing your ignorance of science is very sad and inappropriate. It is a sign of mental illness and schizophrenea: http://www.psyweb.com/signsMI/signsmental.jsp & http://schizophrenia.com/earlysigns.htm# Your extreme anger and hostility at me is also a sign of schizophrenea. Seek professional help immediately.

            “your poorly educated head”
            The cult deprogrammer may also be able help you with your anger issues which express themselves in your insults, which are in reality merely projections of your own failings. But the mental health professional may provide more help with that problem of yours.

          • ROO2

            I’ve never claimed that they don’t radiate at each other. I just make the accurate statement that there is no transfer of energy between them

            So they radiate EM at each other and as your have previously stated “electromagnetic radiation carries energy”.

            Nice contradiction.

            there is no transfer of energy between them because their radiances and radiative pressures are equal.

            For there to be a radiative pressure there is the physical interaction with a photon of energy with matter.

            You contradict yourself again, you cannot have a radiative pressure without an energy flux.

            It’s the very momentum of an energy carrying photon that causes such an effect.

            It’s also rather hilarious that you think that exerting a pressure on a surface causes it to radiate less energy, but that the pseudoscientific world that occupies your head.

            I feel bad for you that your denial of reality is so severe that you are denying your previous ignorance of the fact that emissivity is an important aspect of how a blanket works.

            As my post clearly states it is written with regard to your pseudoscience, not actual science agreed among us scientists.

            “In your world of pseudoscience the colder space blanket cannot radiate any energy back towards the warmer body. It also cannot reflect any energy back towards the warmer body as that also would result in a bidirectional energy flow [cue up your 1st law wave cancelling denying energy claims – which themselves do not conform with the laws of physics].”

            So now you position is that the blanket does both radiate and reflect EM from the blanket back towards the warmer body, but that none of that energy arrives as it is destroyed in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Hence you inability to answer the following:

            The Suns light reflects off the surface of the moon. Two identical photons travel along the same path but with a time delay between them. They both have the same wavelength, say 15 microns, and therefore each carries 0.083 eV of energy.

            The first photon is reflected by the surface of the moon and, according to you, cancels the photon following behind.

            Where does the 0.166 eV of energy now reside that you have just cancelled in the vacuum of space?”

            Poor RealOldOne RIP.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your hilarious rant of debunked lies and misrepresentations as you swirl down the crapper! You poor, poor serially ignorant and ideologically blinded frothing angry fool. No amount of repeating your debunked lies, misrepresentations of me and your obfuscation of distracting from the simple thermodynamics issue.
            You melt down like this every one of the hundreds of times that I have exposed your ignorance of science as you stupidly denied that 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.
            I’m just thoroughly enjoying watching you melt down AGAIN especially as you revel in exposing your own ignorance of science! It’s a HOOT!

            The only way for you to prove your absurd and stupid claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more thermal energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does is to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation thermal energy collector that collects twice as much thermal energy as a solar collector and collects just as much thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime. So how’s it coming? Hahahahahaha You are proved wrong by the real world.

            You have admitted defeat by your continued refusal to answer the question I’ve asked you now 100+ times:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation if it is a real thermal energy flow which is twice as large as the thermal energy flow from the Sun?

          • ROO2

            LOL @ your

            Wow, we’ve not seen that for a while. Last time we saw you using that phrase was shortly before evenminded brought about your spittle flecked abusive meltdown at the Telegraph that brought about your banning. I sense you are getting closer and closer to that point again now.

            You cannot explain your multiple contradictions.

            You claim that an object radiates energy at a cooler object, yet you cannot account for where it ends up, as you claim that the hotter body does not absorb it.

            You cannot explain where the energy goes from your pseudoscience crap about wave cancellation. You claim the energy from the cooler object is magically destroyed contrary to basic thermodynamics that even a school child can grasp.

            You cannot comprehend that the net LW is from the surface to space and therefore on average cannot be collected.

            Your are an ignoramus of such poor intellect.

            Poor RealOldOne2 RIP.

            Your are an idiot, with

          • RealOldOne2

            “Your are an idiot..”
            Flagged for violating the author/moderator’s stated rule to “show some modicum of respect”.

            Thanks for admitting you can’t refute any of the science that I have presented by your resorting to calling me an idiot.

            You can’t refute the science that shows your ignorant claim that the cold atmosphere is primary source of transferring thermal energy to the Earth’s surface and twice as much thermal energy as the Sun. You are so frustrated and angry that you can’t, you resort to calling me an idiot. Sad.

          • ROO2

            Flagged for violating the author/moderator’s stated rule to “show some modicum of respect”.

            A statement of basic fact is not disrespectful.

            Account for the energy both radiated and reflected by any object.

            You cannot.

            Sorry for your loss, RIP RealOldOne2.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Sorry for your loss, RIP RealOldOne.”
            Flagged for continued death threats. That’s a serious issue.

            Sorry, but that attempt to incite me to anger won’t work. I just have pity for such delusional mentally ill low IQ duped doomsday cult fanatics like you.

          • ROO2

            “Sorry for your loss, RIP RealOldOne.”
            Flagged for continued death threats to me and/or my loved ones.

            Hilarious, so not only lashings of Dunning Kruger, you wade in with the conspiracy ideation too.

            Your loss refers to your moribund grasp of basic physics, and the deathnail in your pseudoscientific gibberish.

            You clearly have considerable issues on many levels. Understanding basic science is only scratching the surface it seems. 😉

          • evenminded

            Still crying to your moddy. When are you going to grow a pair?

            It’s been proven that you can’t even come up with a consistent solution to your own problems and statements. You’re a very confused individual.

            At least you admit that adding a cold object to a system can act to increase the temperature of that system. So that is progress on the denier front. It’s too bad that david russell is not able to accept that fact.

          • ROO2

            your ignorant claim that the cold atmosphere is primary source of transferring thermal energy to the Earth’s surface

            Nice strawman.

            The energy is from the Sun you utter dimwit. That’s why you cannot answer the following question put to you over 5 times now.

            You know you cannot answer it because it shows your pseudoscience to be the made up bollox you know it to be.

            “The Suns light reflects off the surface of the moon. Two identical photons travel along the same path but with a time delay between them. They both have the same wavelength, say 15 microns, and therefore each carries 0.083 eV of energy.

            The first photon is reflected by the surface of the moon and, according to you, cancels the photon following behind.

            Where does the 0.166 eV of energy now reside that you have just cancelled in the vacuum of space?””

            You sad, sad, sad old man. 😉

          • ROO2

            Flagged for violating the author/moderator’s stated rule to “show some modicum of respect”.

            No, the moderator agrees with me. The net LW is from the surface to space. Somebody that claims that such energy could be collected it both an idiot and a moron – that is you.

            your ignorant claim that the cold atmosphere is primary source of transferring thermal energy to the Earth’s surface

            That would be my ignorant claim that is supported even by the skeptical scientists publishing in the field, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy.

            I’ve got a 100% consensus of publishing climate scientists on my side.

            Your are most definitely an idiot and a moron.

            RIP RealOldOne2, along with you pseudoscientific gibberish.

          • BigWaveDave

            The magic world of RealOldOne2 where by placing a same temperature object next to another results in a black body changing into the most reflective of mirrors.

            I’ve not laughed so much in ages. Tell us more about this bizarre parallel universe that occupies you poorly educated head.

            Are you suggesting that your universe requires each of two same temperature blackbodies to warm the other? How? How much?

          • RealOldOne2

            Flagged. Violates author/moderator’s stated policy:
            Tom Yulsman: “If you want to keep commenting here, show at least a modicum of respect.”

          • evenminded

            You really are sensitive these days. Still crying to your moddy I see.

            Have you told your girlfriend Lincoln Rhyme about your calculation that an object with a constant energy supply will increase in temperature if it is suddenly surrounded by a cooler radiation shield?

          • evenminded

            He’s on quite the roll these days.

            Did you notice that he was able to correctly calculate that the temperature of an object with a constant heat supply will increase if it is suddenly surrounded by a radiation shield?

            david russell was suffering a severe episode of cognitive dissonance, and if Lincoln Rhyme ever finds out I’m sure that his girlfriend will have hell to pay.

          • ROO2

            Did you notice that he was able to correctly calculate that the temperature of an object with a constant heat supply will increase if it is suddenly surrounded by a radiation shield?

            Amazing first baby steps in a world of science he is yet to understand.

            if Lincoln Rhyme ever finds out I’m sure that his girlfriend will have hell to pay.

            RealOldOne2’s spherical kebabs will be thrown in the bin, there’s no doubt about that.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Finally you embrace bi-directional energy transfer>”
            Another dishonest false statement. You know full well that the “statistical approach” applies to conduction and molecular collisions, and not to radiative energy transfer which happens irrespective of the medium through which the EM waves travel.

            Your bi-directional energy transfer is just a non-physical mental model that can’t be experimentally demonstrated or measured in the real world. In the real world thermal energy always flows in one direction, from the higher temperature object to the lower object.

            Your claim that thermal energy is transferred from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, as shown in the heat transfer example of adding a blanket to an object, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 .

            Peer reviewed science shows that you are wrong. There is no real energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth, as shown in this correct diagram of all the real energy fluxes, including the longwave radiative fluxes: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg . And that was from a paper, Ozawa(2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’, which was written specifically from the perspective of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. No energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. So sad that you deny such basic fundamental science of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

          • ROO2

            You know full well that the “statistical approach” applies to conduction and molecular collisions, and not to radiative energy transfer which happens irrespective of the medium through which the EM waves travel.

            Ah, so now you agree with bidirectional energy transfer does occur. I am glad that you seemed to have learnt something from my lectures to you from the works of Maxwell and Planck.

            Given that “As an object radiates energy into its environment, it also receives energy from its environment.” would I rather rely on what you state or Keith Stow a professor of physics at California Polytechnic State University?

            The largest fundamental problem that you have is a complete lack of mathematical skills to account for the energy in any interactions. You have stated: “I have explicitly stated for a long time that EM waves can be cancelled and reflected…With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy”

            For two objects to be at thermal equilibrium they would need to radiated the same amount of energy towards each other to cancel each others energy. Firstly you cannot account for where that energy goes on cancellation, secondly both objects would be losing heat content from the emission of electromagnetic energy and therefore cooling.

            The overall energy from the system drops because you are destroying it in contravention of the 1st Law of thermodynamics. It’s what is summarised as being unscientific gibberish.

          • RealOldOne2

            “so you now agree with bidirectional energy does occur”
            Still lying Scooter Dana. You know that I have never admitted to bidirectional energy flow. Thermal energy flows in only one direction, downhill in temperature.
            Thanks for yet more evidence that you are serially dishonest. Sad.

            But I’m enjoying your obsession with me, which proves that I have been extremely effective in exposing the scam/hoax/fraud/lie of your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion. Otherwise the whole “Crusher Crew” SkS minions, http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html , wouldn’t have been deployed, trying but continuously failing to refute the science that I post. It’s hilarious to watch you guys fail!

          • ROO2

            You know that I have never admitted to bidirectional energy flow.

            Let’s see what you stated:

            the “statistical approach” applies to conduction and molecular collisions, and not to radiative energy transfer

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/something_really_crazy_is_happening_in_the_arctic/#comment-3042300632

            You position now seems to be that in “conductions and molecular collisions” bidirectional energy transfer does occur in violation of your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but that strictly cannot apply to electromagnetic radiation. *Guffaw*

            Thermal energy flows in only one direction

            except in “conduction and molecular collisions” where you state it flows in both directions, obviously with net being from hot to cold.

            That just leaves EM radiation which for some reason (which would result in you making a monumental climbdown) you do not accept, and nor can you provide an scientific explanation that prohibits it occurring at a molecular level which breaching the 1st law of thermodynamics by destroying energy. Hence you cannot provide an explanation to the following:

            The Suns light reflects off the surface of the moon. Two identical photons travel along the same path but with a time delay between them. They both have the same wavelength, say 15 microns, and therefore each carries 0.083 eV of energy.

            The first photon is reflected by the surface of the moon and, according to you, cancels the photon following behind.

            Where does the 0.166 eV of energy now reside that you have just cancelled in the vacuum of space?”

            Still stumped I see. It’s always strange that backers of pseudoscientiifc gibberish cannot offer any scientific support to their unscientific gibberish.

            You lost, old timer. Bad luck. Suck it up. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            “Let’s see what you stated”
            I stated: “Thermal energy flows in only one direction.” Period. End of story.

            No matter how much you obfuscate and lie, that’s the reality of what I stated and that’s the reality in the real world. And that correct understanding that I hold is why you can’t experimentally demonstrate your frankly, incredibly stupid, claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more thermal energy to the Earth surface than the Sun does. THAT proves that you are wrong and I am right. You know it too, which is why you refuse to answer my question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation if it is a real thermal energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

            “Compare it with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG! That’s all there is to it.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

            This proves that you have lost. So sad that your extreme level of cult brainwashing has ideologically blinded you to recognizing it.

            “cannot offer any scientific support to their unscientific gibberish”
            What a dishonest statement! I’ve provided you dozens of science references that support my understanding of the 2nd Law. I’ll respond to that in a separate post.
            And it appears that your cult leaders taught you to make that silly reply to everything that you are ignorant of and/or can’t refute, since you made that same claim of “gibberish” when I told you that the most effective blanket was one with the lowest emissivity, and you said:

            ROO2: I’m sorry? How does the emissivity of an object have any bearing whatsoever? This is your pseudoscience gibberish that we are talking about here.”

            Evidently your CO2 climate cult leaders scolded you severely for exposing your ignorance, since you now accept that emissivity is important. Perhaps that dressing down by your cult leaders has fueled your continued rage and anger against me, and explains why you continue to try and fail to refute the science that proves me correct and proves you wrong.

            That bit of your ignorance is documented here: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/423d820faf51558d8514717de24ee8105c574b6cc45acac0c3b7f7ee743085df.png

            You said that my discussion of radiation pressure was gibberish too, but now you accept it.

            Since you have accepted those realities which you formerly denied and said were “gibberish”, there is hope that you can accept the reality that thermal energy flow is in one direction, from higher temperature objects to lower temperature objects.

            Your recovery CO2 climate cult brainwashing would be greatly sped up if you would have some therapy sessions with a good cult deprogrammer. He might even be able to prescribe some meds to help with your delusional denial of reality.

          • ROO2

            You said that my discussion of radiation pressure was gibberish too, but now you accept it.

            No, its still gibberish. You are claiming that a radiation pressure exists with no energy flux.

            It clearly remains absolute gibberish.

            I stated: “Thermal energy flows in only one direction.”

            Electromagnetic radiation travels in all directions, cold to hot and hot to cold.

            Your claims that, for example visible light, can only travel in one direction are beyond stupid.

            Poor RealOldOne RIP.

          • RealOldOne2

            Once again my poor serial impersonator, , exposes his scientific illiteracy and denial of real world empirical evidence. So sad. But so typical of serially ignorant fanatical doomsday cult zealots.

            “You are claiming that a radiation pressure exists with no energy flux”
            It does if there is an equal but opposing radiation pressure, because in that case the pressures oppose and there is no energy flow, just as the physics textbook says:

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            Get that? “and CEASES”!

            “Electromagnetic radiation travels in all directions, cold to hot and hot to cold.”
            The transfer of energy is based on the difference in temperature/radiance/radiation and is UNI-directional in the direction from the high temperature object to the low temperature object. No temperature difference, no energy flow, just as the physics textbook says. The electromagnetic waves cancel just as this diagram shows and there is NO energy flow: (Click on diagram for animation) https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/1d_wave_equation_animation.gif?w=640&h=480
            The energy flow is shown in the blue vector sum of the EM waves and exactly equal opposing EM waves cancel and transfer NO energy from one object to the other. Just as the science that I’ve shown you hundreds of times shows:

            “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            and

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            “beyond stupid”
            Yes, the empirical evidence shows that you are.
            So sad that you are in such a frothing rage that you revel in exposing your ignorance of science. Dana, you poor SkS Kidz “Crusher Crew” ( http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html ) are a pathetic lot of science deniers. LOL.

          • ROO2

            It does if there is an equal but opposing radiation pressure, because in that case the pressures oppose and there is no energy flow

            Good grief.

            So you think the variation in atmospheric pressure also modulates the emission of radiation from the Earths surface?

            The existence of a radiation pressure results from the striking of matter [or emission from] of a photon of energy.

            Photons exert no pressure on other photons.

            You are saying that there is, yet again, an energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface by claiming that there is a radiation pressure.

            You are just to thick to understand what it is you are writing about, but then if you had studied science at University you would not be in such a pickle.

            and ceases once the temperatures are equal…Get that? “and CEASES”!

            Maxwell and Boltzmann:

            The energy distribution for a gas will comprise a range of particle momentums and velocities. Two gases at the same temperature will therefore be constantly exchanging energy.

            I’ll stick with Maxwell and Boltzmann thanks.

            The transfer of energy is based on the difference in temperature/radiance/radiation and is UNI-directional in the direction from the high temperature object to the low temperature object.

            Quick test then:

            https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/136063main_bm4_high.jpg

            http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2016-01-07_568e1bb18c303_DSC_5064ast.jpg

            Which picture is incorrect given you claim that electromagnetic radiation can only flow in one direction?

            Given that most people have observed the moon, I’m guessing that you are claiming that the moon picture is a fake. Your fellow moon landing denier Maltow (:s) will be so pleased.

            No temperature difference, no netenergy flow, just as any decent physics textbook says.

            Indeed.

            The electromagnetic waves cancel just as this diagram shows and there is NO energy flow

            Ummm, your animation shows that there are repeated anti-nodes beyond any single interaction of the two opposing waves which indicates no energy cancellation whatsoever, which is further evidence by the two source waves proceeding unopposed in their directions of travel carrying their energy without loss.

            If they did oppose that it would be easy for your to describe where the energy went. This seems to be a sticking point for you though for some reason, even after the fith time of asking, I wonder why? 😉

            “The Suns light reflects off the surface of the moon. Two identical photons travel along the same path but with a time delay between them. They both have the same wavelength, say 15 microns, and therefore each carries 0.083 eV of energy.

            The first photon is reflected by the surface of the moon and, according to you, cancels the photon following behind.

            Where does the 0.166 eV of energy now reside that you have just cancelled in the vacuum of space?”

            Still stumped is poor, poor, poor, intellect RealOldOne2 RIP.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “I always admit to my mistakes, because I’m a sane rational adult.”

            BANG!

            Here we go again.

          • Bart_R

            Let’s see how long it takes RealOldOne2 to realize he’s just argued that a (much) hotter CO2 molecule (one with an excess photon) is giving its heat energy to 99 cooler other molecules in its neighborhood.

          • RealOldOne2

            “hotter CO2 molecule (one with an excess photon
            Hahaha.
            Bart, we are talking about the transfer of heat/energy from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. That is a macro thermodynamics problem. You are just obfuscating by discussing molecules and photons, and you know it because you continually dodge when I ask you how much hotter is that “much hotter” CO2 molecule than the surrounding molecules.

            A simple thermodynamics & heat transfer example of an object with and without a blanket/radiation shield that I gave here, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 , shows that you are wrong, because your understanding violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

            And the real world proves you wrong because you can’t experimentally demonstrate a working ‘backradiation’ energy/heat collector that collects twice as much energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much energy/heat at night as a solar collector does during the daytime.

            “The first thing that needs to be recognised by all is that the one field of study that specifically addresses and handles everything concerning energy transfers between different regions or systems and the temperature changes (if any) that result from them is … that branch of physics called ‘Thermodynamics’. Any argument trying to introduce for instance quantum theory concepts like ‘photons’ into the mix, or laws and relationships pertaining to ‘pure emitters’ or ‘blackbody radiation’, can safely be dismissed as irrelevant to the issue at hand. Bringing in these concepts changes nothing, illuminates nothing. It only confuses the matter. Which would be the purpose of bringing them in. … Anyway, it cannot be stressed too much or too often that any problem dealing with energy transfers between regions or systems to change internal energies (see below) and thus absolute temperatures, is a Thermodynamics problem. Period. There is no need, no point and no sense in invoking principles from other preferred branches of physics in order to attempt in some way or fashion to overrule or circumvent the conclusions reached through a strictly thermodynamic analysis of the problem.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-1/

            Your derailing the discussion from macro thermodynamics into microscopic molecule level is just obfuscation.

            Until you can show my blanket example is wrong (even evenminded accepts it as correct) and until you can experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector, you are just peddling false reverse/anti-thermodynamics pseudoscience.

          • ROO2

            Bart, we are talking about the transfer of heat/energy from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. That is a macro thermodynamics problem.

            Unless you understand the quantum mechanical processes you are as lost as you portray. That’s why you cannot answer any question to show how your pseudoscience works in reality:

            Two CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, one from a jet exhaust at 100C and one at -20C. Both emit an identical 15 micron photon at the ocean surface.

            The surface radiates equally at both. Why does one emit a downwelling photon and the other does not [according you your bizarre grasp of science]?

          • RealOldOne2

            You are obfuscating again.
            Your reverse/anti-thermodynamics claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does has been shown wrong by this thermodynamics/heat transfer example which shows that it violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054
            You can’t refute it.

            You are proven wrong by the fact that you can’t experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as a solar colector does during the daytime.

            “bizarre grasp of science”
            That describes you to a T.

          • ROO2

            has been shown wrong by this thermodynamics/heat transfer example which shows that it violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics:

            “The 15μm CO2 ‘backradiation’ from the cold atmosphere transfers no heat/energy into the warmer ocean because the 15μm radiation from the ocean surface has a higher radiative pressure/force”

            This is beyond scientifically illiterate. Two 15 micron photons convey exactly the same energy irrespective of the temperature of their emitter. The fact that you claim both emitters result in a radiation pressure indicates that the atmospheres emitted photons interact with the Earths surface, that alone is an energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface. There would be no pressure exerted were there not an interaction between electromagnetic radiation (an energy flux) and the surface.

            What you also claim is that imparting electromagnetic radiation onto an object [coupled with your pseudoscientific understanding of thermodynamics on temperatures of objects] prohibits it from emitting electromagnetic radiation.

            You are saying that shining a torch on a light bulb makes the light bulb duller.

            Your bizarre grasp of science and idiocy knows no bounds.

          • evenminded

            Very nice example.

            He’s either too idiotic or too entrenched to ever admit that it destroys his arguments.

          • ROO2

            A question that the fraud will not answer, purely because he is a fraud.

            The beauty of his predicament is that he will not back down. It would not destroy his arguments though, as he has none. His position is that the surface of the planet would radiate less energy the more GHGs were added to the atmosphere.

            For a constant solar input the surface and oceans would warm as a result of reduced radiative heat loss [his pseudoscience].

            No difference in overall effect.

          • evenminded

            At this point he is unable to answer any questions to resolve his many contradictions. He wants to claim all objects radiate at finite temperature and yet he cannot explain what happens to that energy if it is radiated towards a warmer object.

            No difference in overall effect.

            Macroscopically no, but as your example illustrates, he cannot resolve the microscopic facts.

            It’s just too easy.

          • ROO2

            He wants to claim all objects radiate at finite temperature and yet he cannot explain what happens to that energy if it is radiated towards a warmer object.

            Ah, in his mind this is easy. You see the cooler object radiates energy at the warmer one, and this causes the warmer to radiate less energy than it otherwise would. However, the warmer object radiates more energy at the cooler object which causes the cooler object to radiate no energy at the…oh, Houston we have a problem.

          • RealOldOne2

            “resolve his many contradictions”
            I don’t have a single contradiction. You only think so because you believe in pseudoscience and are ignorant of science.

            “yet he cannot explain what happens to that energy if it is radiated towards a warmer object”
            Wrong, I’ve explained it many times. A radiant emittance is a potential energy flow, but is only equal to the maximum if Tc=0K. The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) clearly shows this. If both temperatures are the same, there is NO energy flow. “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            Two objects at exactly the same temperature have exactly the same radiation pressures. When they oppose each other, there is NO energy flow, just like if you have exactly equal lineal forces acting on an object but exactly opposing each other, you get NO linear motion. The forces/radiation pressures don’t disappear nor are they destroyed, they just cause no motion nor energy flow, because they are cancelled by the opposing force. Same goes for radiation pressure.

            “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            Waves can cancel or reflect back: “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            “It’s just too easy.”
            Yes, like I just showed, it’s just too easy to show that you don’t know what you are talking about and are making baseless evidence-free claims. Further evidenced by the fact that you make such ignorant claims such as the cold atmosphere transfers more heat/energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does.
            I showed that your ignorant claim violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 , and you haven’t been able to refute a bit of it, in fact you have posted that you agree with it.

          • evenminded

            You continue to avoid the question.

            The blanket emits X amount of energy out to space and X amount of energy back to the enclosed object.

            The same types of real photons that are being emitted out to space are also being emitted in towards the object.

            What happens to the X amount of real energy emitted back towards the enclosed object?

            In case you are wondering, at steady state X is the amount of energy that is being generated in or supplied to the object.

            You are unable to answer this basic question. To answer it you need to have the amount X equal to an amount transmitted plus an amount reflected, plus an amount absorbed.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL! Denying reality again. I answered it in my comment. Man you are severely duped.

          • evenminded

            Reflected, transmitted, absorbed?

            You can’t answer.

          • RealOldOne2

            You created energy out of nothing!
            That violates the 1st Law. You lose.

            You have the cause of the increase in temperature of the object due to heat flowing from a colder object to a hotter object. That violates the 2nd Law. You lose.

          • evenminded

            Of course I did not create energy out of nothing. Energy is conserved in my system. All energies in to any object are balanced by the energies out. This is obvious.

            Let’s establish what we agree on

            1. We both agree that the enclosed object increases in temperature and we agree on the quantitative amount of this temperature increase.

            2. We both agree on the final temperature of the blanket.

            3. We both agree with Planck’s statement that an object emits the same amount of energy towards a hotter object as it does towards a colder object.

            4. Hence, given 3, we both agree that the blanket emits as much energy towards the object as it does to space.

            What you have yet to answer is what happens to the energy emitted towards the object from the blanket. It can only be transmitted, reflected, or absorbed. Given that you have stated the object is a black body, there is only one correct answer.

            So, what happens to this energy?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL! Already explained. You lost. Get over it.

          • evenminded

            You’ve already admitted that there are 240 J/s emitted from the blanket to space. Since you agree with Planck, you also agree that there are 240 J/s emitted from the blanket to the object.

            So you and I agree with Planck, which means that the blanket is emitting 480 J/s.

            Now, you and I both know the 1st law must be satisfied, so that means that the blanket must be absorbing 480 J/s.

            So where is the blanket absorbing 480 J/s from?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL

          • evenminded

            That’s right. You can’t answer. You are caught in your own contradiction.

            Run along now child as you always do.

          • RealOldOne2

            You are denying reality again.
            I’ve answered you too many times to count, but you are too ideologically blinded and scientifically illiterate to accept the facts, data and science that I presented.

            Sad.

            Go ahead and post your debunked, dishonest lies again. You are only fooling yourself.

            Unless you’ve got that backradiation heat collector working! Hahahaha

          • evenminded

            You have not answered.

            You’ve already admitted that there are 240 J/s emitted from the blanket to space. Since you agree with Planck, you also agree that there are 240 J/s emitted from the blanket to the object.

            So you and I agree with Planck, which means that the blanket is emitting 480 J/s.

            Now, you and I both know the 1st law must be satisfied, so that means that the blanket must be absorbing 480 J/s.

            So where is the blanket absorbing 480 J/s from?

          • RealOldOne2

            Yep, just as I said, more denial of reality and more lies. Sad, sad, sad.

          • evenminded

            The reality is that you are caught in a contradiction. Either you have to disagree with Planck, or you have to violate the 1st law for the blanket.

            Where is the blanket absorbing 480 J/s from?

            You can’t answer, and you will run away as you always do.

          • RealOldOne2

            You melt down into denial and lies like this every time I expose your denial of the 1st & 2nd Law.

            You can’t refute the thermodynamics example that shows you are wrong ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 )

            You can’t experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation heat/energy collector. That proves that you are wrong

            You can’t answer the question that you continually dodge:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy/heat if it is a real heat/energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

            You deny peer reviewed science that shows NO energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg

            You have lost the argument. You are just in too deep of denial to admit it.

          • evenminded

            This is your problem. Why can’t you answer a simple and direct question about your simple problem with a direct answer?

            Where is the blanket absorbing 480 J/s from?

          • RealOldOne2

            Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy/heat if it is a real heat/energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

          • evenminded

            Where is the blanket absorbing 480 J/s from?

          • RealOldOne2

            Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy/heat if it is a real heat/energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?!!!!

          • evenminded

            We are talking about your simple problem.

            Where is the blanket absorbing 480 J/s from?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Where is the blanket absorbing 480 J/s from?
            The blanket is not absorbing 480 J/s. It’s absorbing only 240 J/s of energy, because that’s the only energy in our system, the 240 J/s of internally generate heat/energy within the object. Thus in equilibrium the surface of the object can only transfer away the amount of the only Energy-in in our system, the 240 J/s from it’s internal source. You are creating 240 J/s out of thin air to come up with your 480 J/s.

            Now answer my simple question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy/heat if it is a real heat/energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?
            .

          • evenminded

            So then you disagree with Planck.

            A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            If the blanket emits 240 to space then it must also emit 240 to the object.

            You disagree with Planck. Thanks for playing. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. You didn’t answer the question. Why are you refusing to answer the question? Try again:
            Now answer my simple question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy/heat if it is a real heat/energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

            You are melting down again!

          • evenminded

            You lost. You contradicted yourself. You disagree with Planck.

            I’ve already answered your BRHC straw man ad nauseam.

            Thanks for playing.

          • RealOldOne2

            You lost. You contradicted yourself. You disagree with Planck.”
            No, YOU lost. I didn’t contradict myself. Plank never claimed that a colder object like the blanket in our example transferred heat/energy to a warmer object like in our example. You are misrepresenting him because you continue to not understand that a radiant emittance is not a transfer of energy, it is a potential transfer of energy. The 240J/s that you claim is being transferred from the 255K blanket would only happen IF the temperature of the object was absolute zero. This is clearly seen from the S-B equation: q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴). But the object is NOT at absolute zero, it is at 303K which is hotter than the blanket, so the ONLY energy flow is from the object to the blanket.

            Your scientifically illiterate claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more heat/energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics as this example shows: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 .

            “I’ve already answered your BRHC straw man ad nauseam.”
            No, you proved that the backradiation collected NO energyat night! You made an OWN GOAL! So your silly claim is proved wrong by the fact that you can’t collect your alleged flow of backradiation to the surface of the Earth.

            You are proven wrong by a peer reviewed paper written specifically from the perspective of the 2nd Law. science which shows no energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg

            You are proven wrong because you can’t answer this simple question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy/heat if it is a real heat/energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

            You have lost the argument.
            Thanks for playing!

          • evenminded

            A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            If the blanket emits 240 to space then it must also emit 240 to the object.

            You disagree with Planck. Thanks for playing. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            You’re on FULL TILT now!
            It happens every time I expose your denial of the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. So so sad.

            And you STILL dodge my question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation energy/heat if it is a real heat/energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth?

            All you can do is copy/paste your debunked nonsense. So so sad.

          • evenminded

            I’ve never claimed that backradiation can be harvested by a black cardboard square. That is your straw man. I did explain how such a square would work here:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/since_the_mid_1800s_climate_has_changed_more_or_less/#comment-2883159696

            It’s you that’s on tilt.

            You contradicted yourself and admit that you disagree with Planck.

            You lose. Thanks for playing.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I’ve never claimed that backradiation can be harvested by a black cardboard square. That’s your strawman.”
            It’s no strawman. It’s proof that you are wrong. A black square collects solar radiation just fine. If backradiation was a real energy flow, it would be able to collect it at night. But it doesn’t collect any because it’s not a real energy/heat flow.

            “I did explain how such a square would work here: …”
            You tried to, but you failed, as I exposed here: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/292013-since-the-mid-1800s-climate-has-changed-more-or-less#comment-2883706901

            “It’s you that’s on tilt.”
            You are denying reality. You are the one who stubbornly refuses to answer my question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation if it is a real energy/heat flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of he Earth?

          • evenminded

            I did explain how such a square would work here:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/since_the_mid_1800s_climate_has_changed_more_or_less/#comment-2883159696

            This explanation shows why the real backradiation energy flux cannot be harvested by a warm cardboard square. The backradiation is continually absorbed by the square and the square continually emits radiation according to its temperature. Your question has been answered in an entirely consistent manner using the principles outlined by Planck and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

            It’s you that’s on tilt.

            You contradicted yourself and admit that you disagree with Planck.

            You lose. Thanks for playing.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I did explain how such a square would work here…”
            As I said, you tried to, but you failed to, as I showed in my reply: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/292013-since-the-mid-1800s-climate-has-changed-more-or-less#comment-2883706901

            All you did was confirm that I was correct. The ONLY flow of energy was from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. Your silly failed attempt used circular reasoning, begging the question, assuming what you wanted to prove!
            And you STILL refuse to answer my question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation if it is a real energy/heat flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of he Earth?

            Poor anything-but-evenminded is on FULL TILT. So so sad.
            You lost for all the following reasons:

            Your scientifically illiterate claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more heat/energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics as this example shows: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 . You’ve never refuted anything in that comment, and it proves you wrong.

            “I’ve already answered your BRHC straw man ad nauseam.”
            No, you proved that the backradiation collected NO energyat night! You made an OWN GOAL! So your silly claim is proved wrong by the fact that you can’t collect your alleged flow of backradiation to the surface of the Earth.

            You are proven wrong by a peer reviewed paper written specifically from the perspective of the 2nd Law. science which shows no energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg

            You have lost the argument.
            Thanks for playing!

          • evenminded

            We could go on like this forever.

            The fact is that I have a consistent explanation for how the radiation shield works and how the black cardboard square works that is in accord with both Planck’s statements and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

            I have answered your question. The black cardboard square cannot be used to harvest energy because it emits more EM energy than it absorbs from the real backradiation. Since it emits more EM energy than it absorbs it will cool. This is basic and fundamental physics.

            It’s you that’s on tilt.

            You contradicted yourself and admit that you disagree with Planck.

            You obviously do not realize that your toy problem demonstrates the effects of backradiation. The backradiation that must be emitted (according to Planck) by the cooler blanket towards the object causes the temperature of the object to increase.

            You lose. Thanks for playing.

          • RealOldOne2

            “We could go on like this forever”
            Yes, you could keep exposing your ignorance of science in your denial of the 1st & 2nd Laws by clinging to your mistaken claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more heat to the Earth’s surface that the Sun does.

            “The fact is that I have a consistent explanation for how the radiation shield works”
            Your “explanation” is consistently wrong, as I have shown you many times, because:
            1) the only energy in the universe of our example was 240J/s of internally generated heat, but your explanation creates a new Energy-in to the object of 240J/s of energy that never existed before which violates the 1st Law. You lose.
            2) you have the cause of the object’s temperature increase being the 240J/s of heat energy being transferred from the colder blanket to the warmer object, which violates the 2nd Law which says heat never flows from a colder object to a warmer object. You lose.

            “The black cardboard square cannot be used to harvest energy because it emits more EM energy than it absorbs for the real backradiation.”
            Wrong. Logical fallacy of begging the question. You are assuming what you want to prove. You claim that the backradiation operates 24/7 and transfers twice as much heat to the Earth’s surface as the Sun does, so that means that it should transfer as much heat to the Earth’s surface at night as the Sun does during the daytime. You have admitted that it transfers no heat energy to the Earth’s surface because you admit that it never raises the temperature of the black absorber above ambient, in fact you correctly admit that it continually loses heat to the atmosphere, admitting that the energy transfer is in only one direction, from the warmer square to the colder atmosphere. If the backradiation was a real transfer of as much heat energy to the Earth’s surface as the Sun does during the daytime, it would increase the temperature of the black absorber above the ambient temperature. It doesn’t, because there is no energy being transferred to it. You lose. Your fallacious and failed attempt to claim you are right is exposed here: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/292013-since-the-mid-1800s-climate-has-changed-more-or-less#comment-2883706901

            “It’s you that’s on tilt.”
            No, you are the person on tilt, proven by your continuted obfuscation and handwaving to avoid answering the question that you have dodged every one of the dozens and dozens of times I have asked you:
            Why can’t you collect any of the backradiation heat/energy if it is a real twice as large heat/energy flow to the surface of the Earth than the Sun’s heat/energy flow? You lose.

            “You contradicted yourself and admit that you disagree with Planck.”
            No, I didn’t contradict myself, and no Planck never stated that the cold atmosphere transfers twice as much heat energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does. Show me the quote from Planck which says the cold atmosphere transfers twice as much heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does. You can’t. You have the wrong understanding that a radiant emittance is a defacto energy/heat transfer. It’s not, as I’ve explained to you many times, and you just ignore it. The 255K blanket would only transfer 240W/m² to the object if the temperature of the object was at absolute zero, as the S-B equation clearly shows Q=q=ϵσ(Tblanket⁴-Tobject⁴). Only if Tobject=0 would the energy/heat flow from the blanket to the object be a positive 240W/m², ϵσ(255⁴-0⁴) = 240J/s.
            In the new thermal equilibrium with the blanket the S-B equation is Q=q=ϵσ(Tblanket⁴-Tobject⁴) =(1)(5.67×10)(255⁴-303⁴) = 240/W/m². That’s minus 240W/m², which means that the energy/heat flow is 240W/m² from the warmer object to the colder blanket, satisfying the 1st Law since the only energy in our system is 240W/m².(not 480W/m² as you claim, which does violate the 1st Law). You lose.

            “You obviously do not realize that your toy problem demonstrates the effect of backradiation.”
            You are beginning your back down from your wrong view. I do realize that my problem does demonstrate the effect of backradiation. The effect is real, but the transfer of energy from the colder blanket to the warmer object is not real. The effect occurs because the blanket acts as a radiation shield and places a resistance to heat flow away from the object, which causes the internally generated heat to accumulate and cause an increase in temperature. It is not because there is energy/heat being transferred to the object. My understanding is agrees with universally accepted heat transfer textbooks:

            “One way of reducing radiant heat transfer between two particulare surfaces is the use materials which are highly reflective. An alternative method is to use radiation shields between the heat-exchange surfaces. These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded. – J.P.Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’, McGraw Hill, 2nd ed., textbook

            The radiant emittance of the blanket retards the heat flow away from the object which allows the internally generated energy to increase, which causes the temperature increase. Your wrong understand has a new (1st Law violating) heat flow from the colder blanket to the warmer object causing the temperature increase, which is undeniably a claim of heat transferring from a colder object to a hotter object, which violates the 2nd Law. You lose.

            So once AGAIN, I answer all your objections and show from science why your objections are wrong.
            You on the other hand answer none of the science that I present which shows that you are wrong.

            So as always, I win, you lose, because my view is supported by real science and your wrong view is just pseudoscience.
            I thoroughly enjoyed exposing your misunderstanding of thermodynamics, heat transfer and the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. Thanks for playing.

          • evenminded

            1) the only energy in the universe of our example was 240J/s of internally generated heat, but your explanation creates a new Energy-in to the object of 240J/s of energy that never existed before which violates the 1st Law.

            No, there is not any creation of energy in my explanation. The first law is satisfied at all times. The only energy coming into the system is from the energy source. If you’d like we can go over the full time dependent solution to this “universe”. Given that it takes time to reach steady state the source will provide all of the energy that is needed to increase the temperature of both the object and the blanket.

            Here are the first law balances at the final steady state:

            object:
            Energy in from source: 240
            Energy radiated in from blanket to object: 240
            Energy radiated out to blanket: 480
            Energy in minus Energy out = 0

            blanket:
            Energy out to space: 240
            Energy out to object: 240 (this must be true if you agree with Planck)
            Energy in from blanket: 480
            Energy out minus Energy in = 0

            The first law is satisfied. All energy fluxes balance. Again, if you’d like we can go over a full time dependent solution and I will show you how the first law works at all points in time.

            2) you have the cause of the object’s temperature increase being the 240J/s of heat energy being transferred from the colder blanket to the warmer object, which violates the 2nd Law which says heat never flows from a colder object to a warmer object.

            The heat flux is the net transfer of energy. Let’s see how the heat fluxes proceed.

            Heat flux from object to blanket = energy radiated from object to blanket minus energy radiated from blanket to object = 480 – 240 = 240.

            Hence the heat flux is from the warmer object to the colder blanket in accord with the 2nd law.

            You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            Oh boy, another opportunity to expose your ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Thanks!

            And before I get to expose your continued ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer, I’ll point out that once again, as always you dodge and refuse to answer my question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation heat/energy if it is a real heat/energy flow that is twice as large as the heat/energy flow from the Sun? Your fake pseudoscience is skewered by the real world. You lose again.

            “There is not any creation of energy in my explanation. The first law is satisfied at all times”
            How can you tell such a baldfaced lie when you prove yourself wrong in your own comment! “Energy radiated out to blanket:480”
            There you go you proved yourself wrong.
            There is no transfer of 480W/m² of heat/energy away from the 303K surface of the object. That is twice as much as the only heat in the system, 240W/m² of internally generated heat. You have created 240W/m of never before existing in our system. You are proved wrong by the Heat Transfer textbook which says:

            “These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded.” – J.P.Holman, ‘Heat Transfer’, McGraw Hill, 2nd ed., textbook

            Your wrong understanding does have newly created out of nothing heat being delivered to the object. You lose again.

            “All energy fluxes balance”
            Irrelevant, because you just created new heat out of nothing.
            You are as wrong as someone who claimed that the heat continued in a self amplifying loop to the point there was 1,000,240W/m^ transferring away from the object and 1,000,000W/m^ transferring from the blanket to the object. The energy flux would balance, but it would be wrong just as your are wrong. You have created a new 240W/m²(240J/s) of energy/heat flow that didn’t exist in our system. You lose again.

            “= 480 -240 = 240. Hence the heat flux is from the warmer object to the colder blanket in accord with the 2nd Law”
            There is your 480, which is 240 more than existed in our system. You again created 240 W/m² of heat/energy that didn’t exist in our system. And in your wrong view you added a new Energy-in source of 240W/m² that didn’t exist before, pretending that now the Energy-in to the object is 480W/m². And in your false view, it is THAT 240W/m² which causes the increase in internal energy and temperature of the object. THAT violates the 2nd Law. You lose again!

            You ignore the fact that you have violated the S-B equation in your claim that there is 480W/m² of heat/energy being transferred from the 303K object to the 255K blanket , q=ϵσ(Tobject⁴-Tblanket⁴) = (1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(303⁴-255⁴) = 240W/m², not 480W/m². You lose again.

            You can’t experimentally demonstrate your silly claim that the cold atmosphere transfers twice as much heat/energy to the surface of the Earth as the Sun does. That means that the cold atmosphere is the primary source of energy/heat that is transferred to the Earth’s surface. That is so blatantly false that even a 10 year old knows it is not true. You lose again.

            Yet once more, you lose again. I have refuted all your pseudoscience non-answers. You lose, I win.

          • evenminded

            I have answered your question as to why a black cardboard square cannot be used to harvest backradiation at night.

            You still fail to understand how your BRHC works. You state:

            If the backradiation was a real transfer of as much heat energy to the Earth’s surface as the Sun does during the daytime, it would increase the temperature of the black absorber above the ambient temperature.

            You are wrong. As I explained during the day the square absorbs both backradiation and solar. The sum of these two energy fluxes in is greater than the energy flux out that the cardboard emits. At night the square only absorbs backradiation which is less than the amount of energy that it emits. Hence, during the day the cardboard has an excess of energy in, which is transferred to the circulating water, and at night the cardboard has an energy deficit which must be supplied by the circulating water. I have provided the numbers that quantify the energy fluxes during these two periods of the day in my post.

            What my answer does is to explain why the cardboard cannot be used to harvest the real backradiation at night, and I have done so using only the principles described by Planck and the S-B equation.

            You lose.

            I have not created any new energy. All of the energy is introduced by the source.

            Again, would you like the full time history of the temperature of the object to see the first law balance?

            You obviously do not understand the first law.

            The SB equation is satisfied for all energy fluxes in my solution. q is the heat flux which is the net energy flux, which I showed is always from hot to cold.

            Here are your energy fluxes.

            object:
            Energy in from source: 240
            Energy radiated in from blanket to object: 0*
            Energy radiated out to blanket: 240
            Energy in minus Energy out = 0

            blanket:
            Energy out to space: 240
            Energy out to object: 0* (this means that you disagree with Planck)
            Energy in from object: 240
            Energy out minus Energy in = 0

            You disagree with Planck. You lose.

          • Mensch59

            Thanks once again for teaching the physics directly.
            I hope that it’s not lost on losers.

          • ROO2

            You know when RealOldOne2 claimed to have a degree in a scientific subject, I’m starting to think that the likelihood of it being sports science is increasing exponentially.

          • RealOldOne2

            “At night the square only absorbs backradiation which is less than the amount of energy that it emits.”
            Thanks for admitting that you are wrong once again. You are admitting that ‘backradiation’ can’t raise the temperature of the surface above ambient, which is the evidence of that energy has been transferred to it. You are stuck on a non-physical mental model, and ignoring the real world physical reality that energy flow is only in one direction, from hotter objects to colder objects.

            You once again expose your ignorance that a radiance/radiant emittance is not in and of itself an energy flow. You are violating the S-B equation of thermal energy transfer between two objects because you are pretending that the temperature of the Earth’s surface is absolute zero. That is the only way that Q from the 255K atmosphere is equal to 240W/m². But the temperature is not absolute zero, it is ~288K. Therefore while the atmosphere has a radiance/radiant emittance of 240W/m², it does not transfer 240W/m² to the Earth’s surface because the radiance/radiant emittance of the Earth’s surface is greater because the temperature of the surface is higher, thus the only energy flow in the unified radiation field is in one direction, from the surface to the atmosphere. THAT is why you can’t collect any energy with a backradiation collector, because there is no energy/heat flow from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface.
            The real energy fluxs/flows/transfers in the Earth’s energy budget are shown in this diagram from peer reviewed science: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg and there is no energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth, for that would violate the 2nd Law. You lose again.

            So you STILL give no valid answer to my question:
            Why can’t you collect that backradiation from the colder atmosphere to the surface?
            Your answer actually agrees with my position. Thanks for admitting that I am correct and that you are wrong.

            “What my answer does is to explain why the cardboard cannot be used to harvest the real backradiation at night”
            No, it does not. You have just admitted that you are wrong. You claim that half of the energy/heat being transferred to the Earth’s surface happens at night, yet you admit that at night there is no backradiation collected by an energy absorber at the surface. That proves that your claim that backradiation is a real energy flow from the cold atmosphere to the surface is wrong.

            Let’s say something blocked the Sun’s radiation from getting to the Earth so that the daytime would be just like the nighttime. So you have admitted that there would be no transfer of backradiation energy/heat to the Earth’s surface at all because you would now have 24 hours of night, which you have agreed that the absorber never increases in temperature, thus never increases it’s internal energy, which means that no energy/heat is being transferred to it. If there was a real transfer of heat, the surface temperature would increase. You lose.

            “I have not created any new energy”
            That’s blatantly false. You claim that there is 480W/m² of Energy-in, which is 240W/m² more Energy-in that is in the system. You created energy out of nothing, thus violating the 1st Law. You lose.

            You obviously don’t understand the first law.”
            I have proved that I do understand it and that you don’t.

            “The S-B equation is satisfied for all energy fluxes in my problem”
            Nope, as I proved in my previous comment.
            You have violated the S-B equation of thermal energy transfer between two objects in your claimed 480W/m² energy flux from the 303K object to the 255K blanket: q=ϵσ(Tobject⁴-Tblanket⁴) = (1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(303⁴-255⁴) = 240W/m², not 480W/m². You lose again.

            You have violated the S-B equation in your claimed +240W/m² energy flux from the blanket to the object: q=ϵσ(Tblanket⁴-Tobject⁴) = (1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(255⁴-303⁴) = MINUS240W/m², not +240W/m². That means that the only real world energy flow is from the warmer object to the colder blanket. You lose again.

            “Here are your energy fluxes. Energy radiated in from the blanket to object: 0*”
            Stop. Take “radiated” out of your list and add “transferred” before the “in”s and “out”s, then your list is correct. The subject of our discussion is real world thermodynamic energy transfers, not hypothetical NON-real mental models.

            “You disagree with Planck.”
            No, Planck never said that there was a real energy/heat flow from the cold atmosphere to the Earth’s surface, or from a colder object to a hotter object. I challenged you to quote where Planck said that, and you have failed to do so. You lost. You just misunderstand that a radiance/radiant emittance is not necessarily a heat transfer, it is a potential heat transfer, but the radiant emittance of any temperature is only that amount of heat transfer if and only if the object it is in thermal contact with is at absolute zero.

            Once again, I have proved you wrong.
            The S-B equation of thermal energy transfer between two objects shows that a real energy/heat transfer is driven only by a temperature difference.

            “The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow.” – India Institute of Technology

            When there is no difference in temperature, there is no thermal energy flow, period.

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            “if the temperature of one object is higher than that of the other object, there will be a transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder object UNTIL both objects reach the same temperature.” – http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/differ.html , NASA & California Institute of Technology

            In our real world the temperature of the Earth’s surface is higher than the atmosphere, so there will be a transfer of energy from the Earth’s surface to the colder atmosphere. Your false claim that there is a real thermal energy transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth is and NON-real mental model, which is irrelevant because the only real world measurable & quantifiable flow of energy is from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. As the atmosphere changes temperature, it merely retards that thermal energy flow away from the surface. It doesn’t transfer more or less thermal energy to the Earth’s surface.
            It’s quite sad that you are unable to comprehend this simple science fact.

            As always, it is easy to expose your 1st & 2nd Law denial as pseudoscience.

          • evenminded

            I have yet to be wrong in any part of this discussion. It’s a fact that at night, backradiation in the amount of ~300 W/m^2 cannot raise the temperature of a 25C blackbody because a blackbody at 25C emits 447 W/m^2. Hence, at night the 25C square emits more energy than it absorbs. This is very basic physics. Why can’t you understand it, when schoolchildren can understand it? It’s simple.

            Here are your energy fluxes.

            object:
            Energy in from source: 240
            Energy radiated in from blanket to object: 0*
            Energy radiated out to blanket: 240
            Energy in minus Energy out = 0

            blanket:
            Energy out to space: 240
            Energy out to object: 0* (this means that you disagree with Planck)
            Energy in from object: 240
            Energy out minus Energy in = 0

            *A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            You disagree with Planck. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I have yet to be wrong in any part of this discussion”
            ROTFLOL! Sure, you’re God too! Hahahaha

          • evenminded

            I just provided a full time history solution for your “universe”. Given that it contains differential equations and integration I am sure that you are unable to understand it. I have proven that my solution satisfies the first law for all times and it also satisfies Planck’s principles and the S-B equation.

            Here are your energy fluxes.

            object:
            Energy in from source: 240
            Energy radiated in from blanket to object: 0*
            Energy radiated out to blanket: 240
            Energy in minus Energy out = 0

            blanket:
            Energy out to space: 240
            Energy out to object: 0* (this means that you disagree with Planck)
            Energy in from object: 240
            Energy out minus Energy in = 0

            *A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            You disagree with Planck. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I have yet to be wrong in any part of this discussion”
            ROTFLOL! Sure, you’re God too! Hahahaha

            “backradiation in the amount of 300W/m^2 cannot raise the temperature of a 25C blackbody because a blackbody at 25C emits 447W/m^2>”
            Thanks for admitting that you are wrong AGAIN!
            The radiation pressure of the warmer surface is greater than the radiation pressure of the colder atmosphere so the ONLY thermal energy flow is FROM the warmer surface TO the colder atmosphere. You lose, by your own admission!

            And you STILL haven’t provided an quote from Planck to back up your statement.

            And you STILL haven’t answered my question:
            Why can’t you collect that ‘backradiaion’ heat/energy if it is a real thermal energy flow that is twice as large as the real thermal energy flow from the Sun?

            You once again FAIL!!!

            Gee, it only took one comment today to get you on FULL TILT! Hilarious!

          • evenminded

            Here are your energy fluxes.

            object:
            Energy in from source: 240
            Energy radiated in from blanket to object: 0*
            Energy radiated out to blanket: 240
            Energy in minus Energy out = 0

            blanket:
            Energy out to space: 240
            Energy out to object: 0* (this means that you disagree with Planck)
            Energy in from object: 240

            Energy out minus Energy in = 0

            *A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            You disagree with Planck. You’re on tilt. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            Hahaha. It only took one comment today to get you on FULL TILT. Hilarious.

            So sad that you haven’t learned that repeating your debunked lies will never make them true. You are demonstrating the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

            You keep making the same false cut-and paste claim, but you FAIL to provide a quote from Planck that says that the cold atmosphere transfers thermal energy to the warmer surface of the Earth. There is NO energy TRANSFER claimed in your quote, only radiances, which I have shown you are NOT thermal energy transfers from one object to another.

            And you STILL refuse to provide a valid answer to my question:
            Why can’t you collect that ‘backradiation’ if it is a real thermal energy flow like the real thermal energy flow from the Sun is?

            So sad that such stupidity exists, but when you practice climate necromancy like you do, I guess it’s to be expected. You climate necromancers are such poor deluded fools.

          • evenminded

            We are not talking about the atmosphere. We are talking about your idealized universe.

            Here are your energy fluxes.

            object:
            Energy in from source: 240
            Energy radiated in from blanket to object: 0*
            Energy radiated out to blanket: 240
            Energy in minus Energy out = 0

            blanket:
            Energy out to space: 240
            Energy out to object: 0* (this means that you disagree with Planck)
            Energy in from object: 240
            Energy out minus Energy in = 0

            *A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            You disagree with Planck. You’re on tilt. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. FULL TILT alert! Hahaha
            Copy-paste spam. Sad.

            Come on, you’re so hopping mad now it’s time for your “You’re an idiot” & “You’re a moron”! Or did the moderator tell you that if you continued throwing those childish tantrums that you would be blocked?

            Instead of further exposing your insanity and ignorance of science, go work on your backradiation collector. A Nobel Prize awaits you for being the first person in the history of the planet to falsify the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics! Hahaha

          • evenminded

            I’ve already addressed all of your questions. I have proven that your solution does not respect the principles laid out by Planck that have been known for over a century.

            To review, it’s a fact that at night, backradiation in the amount of ~300 W/m^2 cannot raise the temperature of a 25C blackbody because a blackbody at 25C emits 447 W/m^2. Hence, at night the 25C square emits more energy than it absorbs. This is very basic physics. Why can’t you understand it, when schoolchildren can understand it? It’s simple. Even Kristian knows that the heat flux is the net energy flux which in this example is 447-300=147 W/m^2 from the cardboard to the atmosphere. So, I have answered why a black cardboard square cannot be used to harvest real backradiation at night. The fact that you continue to ask a question that has been answered proves that you are unhinged and on tilt.

            I have also proven that your energy fluxes do not respect Planck’s statement. If the blanket emits 240 to space, then according to Planck it also emits 240 towards the object. You have failed to abide by this fundamental principle.

            Here are your energy fluxes.

            object:
            Energy in from source: 240
            Energy radiated in from blanket to object: 0*
            Energy radiated out to blanket: 240
            Energy in minus Energy out = 0

            blanket:
            Energy out to space: 240
            Energy out to object: 0* (this means that you disagree with Planck)
            Energy in from object: 240
            Energy out minus Energy in = 0

            *A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            You disagree with Planck. You’re on tilt. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I’ve already addressed all your questions”
            What a pathetic lie.

            Sorry, but your cut-and-paste debunked rubbish pseudoscience only exposes your insanity, scientific illiteracy and ignorance. Keep up your FULL TILT brain explosion. It’s hilarious!

          • evenminded

            Run along now child. I hope that you’ve enjoyed your beating for the day.

            Let me know when you are able to address the proof that your solution violates Planck’s statements.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Run along now child. I hope that you’ve enjoyed your beating for the day.”
            LOL. Your projection is hilarious!

            “Let me know when you are able to address the proof that your solution violates Planck’s statements”
            Sorry, but my solution doesn’t violate Planck’s statements. You haven’t provided any of Planck’s statements that proved me wrong. The statement that you quote doesn’t do that, because a radiance is not an energy transfer from a colder object to a hotter object.
            And again, you are obfuscating by focusing on a hypothetical NON-physical mental model that is not relevant to the real world, where thermal energy only flows ” ‘downhill’ in temperature”:

            “”Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

            The real world disproves your silly claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more thermal energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does. Backradiation is not a real thermal energy flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth. That would violate the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics as I have shown in the blanket example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054

          • evenminded

            Yes, your solution does violate Planck’s statement.

            A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            For your solution you have the blanket emitting 240 to 0K space and 0 to the 303K object.

            Hence you do not have the blanket emitting the same amount of radiation in each direction as Planck’s statement clearly states must happen.

            You disagree with Planck. You’re on tilt. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Yes, your solution does violate Planck’s statement …”
            You poor ideologically blind and climate alarmist, a radiance is not a thermal energy transfer. In the real world that we live in the only thermal energy transfer is in one direction, from the high temperature (radiance) object to the low temperature (radiance) object. That’s reality. So sad that you are in denial of that reality.

            Sadly you continue to obfuscate our simple thermodynamics problem with your irrelevant hypothetical NON-physical mental models. But that’s what reality-denying doomsday cultists do. Sad.

          • evenminded

            Planck’s statement is clear. He is also clear in his book about what radiation is.

            A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B′ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B′ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B′ a stronger emitter than A.

            For your solution you have the blanket emitting 240 to 0K space and 0 to the 303K object.

            Hence you do not have the blanket emitting the same amount of radiation in each direction as Planck’s statement clearly states must happen.

            You disagree with Planck. You’re on tilt. You lose.

          • RealOldOne2

            Your ideological blindness is still rearing its ugly head again. I don’t disagree with Planck, as you will see if you read this whole comment.

            “body A emits at 100°C toward a body B at 0°C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000°C. The fact that body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”

            Yes, that quote from Planck proves me correct.

            The thermal energy flow between object A and B is UNIdirectional, from A (higher temperature) to B (lower temperature) as evidenced by the fact that Planck admits that the interaction between A and B causes A to cool(lose energy) which means that it loses thermal energy which is transferred to B. The rate of thermal energy transferred is determined by the S-B thermal energy transfer equation:
            q=ϵσ(Tₐ⁴-Tᵦ⁴) = (1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(373⁴-273⁴) = 783W/m² of thermal energy from A to B.

            And the thermal energy flow between object B’ and A is UNIdirectional, from B’ (higher temperature) to A (lower temperature) as evidenced by the fact that Planck states that the interaction between A and B’ causes A to warm which means that it object B’ has transferred thermal energy to object A. The rate of thermal energy transferred is determined by the S-B thermal energy transfer equation:
            q=ϵσ(Tᵦ’ ⁴-Tₐ⁴) = (1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(1273⁴-273⁴) = 148,586W/m² of thermal energy from object B’ to A.

            Planck does not say that there is thermal energy transferred from the cooler object A to the hotter object B’, he just says that object A emits toward.

            “Toward” is a direction. “Toward” does not mean “transferred to”. You are demonstrating confirmation bias and reading into Planck something that he is not saying. Again, I challenge you to quote Planck stating that a lower temperature object “transfers thermal energy” to a higher temperature object.

            Here’s an analogy:
            Person A is exerting a force on a ball of 100# to the right toward person B’, who is exerting a force on a ball of 1000# to the left toward person A. The only movement of the ball is to the left in the direction FROM the person exerting the higher force TO the the person exerting the lower force.

            Person A 100#–>⃝<–1000# Person B'

            There is no bi-directional motion, even though each person is exerting a force that would cause motion if there were no opposing force. But there is an opposing force so there is only UNI-directional motion. Person A’s force to the right isn’t destroyed, it is offset by the larger force from Person B’.

            If you give an area to the ball, you have now defined a pressure. Even your fellow CO2 cultist, my serial impersonator ROO2 (documented here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3011348524 ) has now accepted that radiation pressure is real, not gibberish as he previously said.

            “For your solution you have the blanket emitting 240 to 0K space and 0 to the 303K object.”
            Again, you confuse emitting toward, with a transfer of thermal energy. I am correct that there is no transfer of thermal energy from the colder blanket to the warmer object, for that would violate the 2nd Law. There is only a UNI-directional flow of thermal energy from the warmer object to the colder blanket, the rate of which is determined by the difference in temperatures/radiances of the two objects. Your incorrect claim that there is an actual transfer of thermal energy from the colder blanket to the warmer object violates the 1st Law (because it creates a new never before existing energy flow of 240J/s) and violates the 2nd Law because it has a transfer of thermal energy from a colder object to a hotter object which causes that warmer object to increase its internal energy and temperature. That is impossible in the real world.

            So once again, all you can do is lie about what I say and babble your misunderstandings of thermodynamics and heat transfer. Sad, but common among duped doomsday cult zealots.

            You still lose. As you will always lose when you attempt to justify your denial of the fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics.

            Rant and rave all you want, but it will never prove your stupid claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more thermal energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does.
            The only way you can prove that is to experimentally demostrate a working ‘backradiation’ heat collector which collects twice as much thermal energy as a solar collector and collects just as much thermal energy at night as a solar collector does during the daytime. And you have already admitted that a backradiation collector can’t collect any thermal energy, because backradiation can’t increase the temperature of any object on the Earth’s surface and increase its temperature. So you have admitted defeat. Thanks for playing. You have fun today.

          • evenminded

            Yes, you do disagree with Plank.

            For your solution you have the blanket emitting 240 to 0K space and 0 to the 303K object.

            Hence you do not have the blanket emitting the same amount of radiation in each direction as Planck’s statement clearly states must happen.

            You have:

            Energy flux blanket emits towards space = 240
            Energy flux blanket emits towards object = 0

            You disagree with Planck. You’re on tilt. You lose.

          • ROO2

            The radiation pressure of the warmer surface is greater than the radiation pressure of the colder atmosphere

            Radiation pressure results from the force exerted by electromagnetic radiation on matter.

            You’ve just described an energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface of the planet.

            Good work. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            “Radiation pressure results …”
            Ah, good, you are learning from me, when I posted:

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html
            &
            The entire reference of that slide is here: http://physics.info/em-waves/ Go to the end where it talks about radiation pressure, similar to the WolframResource reference that I cited, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html . Equal but opposite radiation pressure results in no heat energy flow. Equal but opposite radiation force results in no heat energy flow.

            You previously dismissed by discussing radiation pressure as gibberish. Now you have accepted it as reality. Good for you. There is hope for you one day accepting the reality that the cold atmosphere doesn’t transfer any thermal energy to the warmer surface of the Earth.

            “You’ve just described an energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface of the planet.”
            No, your confirmation bias and ideological blindness causes you to mistakenly believe that. All I’ve done is show that there is a resistance that retards the UNI-directional radiative thermal energy flow from the surface of the Earth to outer space, just as the Holman’s ‘Heat Transfer’ textbook section on radiation shields states: “These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system; they only place another resistance in the heat-flow path so that the overall heat transfer is retarded.

            Your continued progress in giving up your false pseudoscience of your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion would be greatly accelerated if you would contact a good cult deprogrammer.

          • ROO2

            Ah, good, you are learning from me

            I’ve learnt that you are a self contradicting idiot that cannot comprehend fundamental scientific principles.

            “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation”

            Ah, that would be the electromagnetic radiation that carries energy, that you claim the atmosphere radiates at the surface and exerts a radaition pressure on the surface of the planet from that same energy, whilst also claiming that there is no energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface.

            Your argument is the most idiotic self contradictory gibberish I have seen in a long, long time.

            “These shields do not deliver or remove any heat from the overall system”

            But you claimed that the reflected EM energy was annihilated by the incident energy from wave cancellation, removing net energy from the system.

            Perhaps you might like to actually read Holman’s ‘Heat Transfer’ textbook and work through any examples. At the moment your 1st law denying pseudoscience is just a joke.

            Poor RealOldOne2 RIP.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I’ve learnt that you are a self contradicting idiot that cannot comprehend fundamental scientific principles”
            You are projecting again! And your name calling shows that I have won and you have lost. Thanks.

            “you claimed that the reflected EM energy was annihilated…”
            Your serial dishonesty rears its ugly head once again. I’ve never said that. Quote me. You can’t, because you are lying. Poor, poor serially dishonest ROO2, my serial impersonator.

            “At the moment your 1st law denying pseudoscience is just a joke.”
            There you go again with your projection! You are the one who denies both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics as this example shows:
            The simple thermodynamics/heat transfer example of an object with and without a blanket, which proves you wrong. It shows that your wrong understanding results in the creation of energy out of nothing which violates the 1st Law. The 1st Law, Conservation of Energy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
            The same example shows that your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law too because your wrong view has the cause of the increase in temperature of the object being a transfer of heat from the colder blanket to the warmer object. The 2nd Law says that heat is only transferred from a warmer object to a colder object, and not the reverse.

            Givens:
            – We have an object with a surface area of 1m².
            – The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
            – the object and the blanket are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
            – The S-B constant, σ=5.67x10⁻⁸.
            – Temps rounded to whole numbers.
            – The blanket is very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are equal, 1m².
            – The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m² within the object.
            – The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
            – The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.

            So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m². The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.

            So the ONLY energy that exists in our system is 240W/m², PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy in our system is 240Joules/sec.
            At initial thermal equilibrium the 240Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.

            We now surround the object with a blanket/radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system.

            The blanket now receives the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is radiating away from the object so the internal energy of the blanket begins to increase which causes the temperature of the blanket to increase. As the blanket temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m² of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.

            The blanket temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the blanket will then be 255K(-18C).
            At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the blanket must equal the Energy-out from the blanket to space which must equal the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.

            The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
            q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==> Th⁴=(240/5.67x10⁻⁸)+255⁴
            ==> Th=303K

            That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
            1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec), which is the only Energy existing in our system.

            2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the blanket) remains 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the blanket to space is 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).

            3) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy/heat flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/blanket and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/blanket to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says:

            “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155.

            4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.

            Now your wrong understanding is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m² (Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder 255K blanket to the warmer 303K object. So your wrong understanding now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).
            You have created 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.

            Your wrong view has 480W/m² (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the ONLY energy/heat source of our system.
            You have once again created 240W/m² out of thin air.

            Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because you have created energy where there was none before, so conservation of energy has been violated.

            And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law as you have the cause of the increase in object temperature being the transfer of heat from a colder object (blanket) to a warmer object.

            QED, My understanding is correct and your understanding is wrong.

          • ROO2

            I’m sorry. What happens to the energy radiated by the blanket back at the heated object? You were unclear on this.

            So what happens if the useless radiation space blanket that you specified is changed to a very high end one with an ϵ=0.0000001, where the vast majority of incident energy is reflected?

            Please account for all the energy in the first second when the blanket is at 0K.

          • BigWaveDave

            I have yet to be wrong in any part of this discussion.

            You have yet to provide a theory of how it is physically possible for CO2 in our atmosphere to cause warming.

            So really, you have yet to be right in any part of the discussion.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            You’re back. You can run along now. This discussion is way over your head. It includes actual math and science that you clearly do not understand.

          • BigWaveDave

            Why should I run along? You’re the one who doesn’t have a theory of how your silly beliefs could possibly be correct.

            You probably even think cold warms hot, but from your “arguments”, it is difficult to tell what you believe, because you never seem to understand what the subject is.

          • evenminded

            You should run along because you are too scientifically illiterate to understand the solution that I presented.

            The problem in question very clearly demonstrates that adding a cold object to the system causes the temperature of the system to increase.

            I’m sure you don’t understand this fundamental physical fact. It’s basic thermodynamics, which is obviously above your level of competence.

            You’re an idiot.

          • ROO2

            I do love it when he cannot explain how his own pseudoscience works in his own thought experiment, then resort to posting “Look squirrel” repeatedly. Poor, poor, poor RealOldOne2. The old boy took quite a spanking.

          • evenminded

            What’s been fun about this is that he’s come up with an example where adding a cold object to a system caused the system to warm. The deniers can’t quite handle it. david russell seems to have fallen off the grid.

            On top of that, I don’t think he gets the fact that we come up with the same final answer. So, if we get the same answer in the end, who cares if you actually believe in backradiation or not? If you get the same answer in the end you are going to find that adding CO2 causes the temperature to rise, just like adding the cold blanket causes the object to increase in temperature. I think that some people call that “warming”.

            What’s the holiday season like down under? It’s starting to get cold here in Texas.

          • ROO2

            I love the way he concedes that bidirectional energy transfer does happen in violation of the 2nd law, but that is only for molecular collisions, and does not hold for EM. Slowly he is clown dancing towards a scientific position, but not quite there yet though.

            What’s the holiday season like down under? It’s starting to get cold here in Texas.

            Ah, I’m not down under mate, the kangaROO has mislead you. I’m in the UK, which at present is a balmy 14 C. Very warm for the time of year, we need a good polar vortex if the kids want to go sledging at Xmas this year it seems.

          • Bart_R

            You don’t get to frame the discussion or set the terms.

            And we’ve been through the “working backradiation collector” discussion. Earth is a working backradiation collector. You know it works, because Earth is warmer than the Moon.

            What you propose is in fact the violation of Thermodynamics, regardless of the ‘level’. A container of pure CO2 charged up with IR will at the macro level transfer heat to a container of well-mixed N2, O2 and Ar no less than the CO2 molecules mixed with N2, O2 and Ar would, albeit less efficiently.

            Is your memory that poor, that you don’t remember this all being explained to you?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Earth is a working backradiation collector”
            LOL. No, it’s not. There is zero empirical evidence that any energy/heat has been collected from the cold atmosphere being transferred to the warmer surface of the Earth. ZERO!

            You lost the argument. Deal with it.

          • Bart_R

            The Moon is ZERO?

            Are you denying the existence of the Moon, or that it is colder than Earth on average?

            As well as the over 10,000 new peer-reviewed climatology papers published every year in scholarly journals with fresh empirical evidence?

            You seem to think there’s an argument. There isn’t. You’re just being used as a cautionary tale to help illustrate life lessons to other readers.

            Pay what you owe. Or you could end up like RealOldOne2.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Moon…”
            Hahaha. Rabbit trail.
            Focus there Bart! Refute the thermodynamics example which shows that you are wrong, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 ,
            and experimentally demonstrate a working ‘backradiation heat/energy collector that collects twice as much heat/energy as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as a solar collector does during they daytime. Your inability to do that proves you wrong.

            Face reality Bart. You and your climate alarmist ‘crusher crew’ members have lost this argument. The cold atmosphere does not transfer more heat/energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does, as you claim.

          • Bart_R

            Asked and answered. Repeatedly. As the Earth is already the backradiation collector you seek, you cannot obtain that energy from it again on Earth. It’s already being collected.

            If it weren’t, Earth would share approximately the same average temperature as the Moon.

            Perhaps you can point to some peer-reviewed published explanation of your ‘higher radiative pressure’ theory?

            Your ‘thermodynamics example’ does not explain the Moon. Therefore, it is simply wrong.

          • RealOldOne2

            Nope, that doesn’t refute the thermodynamics/heat transfer blanket example that shows your fantasy view violates the 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 ), nor does it experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation heat collector.

            Don’t you get tired banging your head against the wall? You lost. Get over it!

          • Bart_R

            You keep claiming you’ve shown something you haven’t.

            And you keep failing to explain the Moon.

            Tell us, in your world, is there a Moon?

          • RealOldOne2

            Nope, that latest rabbit trail still doesn’t refute the thermodynamics/heat transfer blanket example that shows your fantasy view violates the 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054 ), nor does it experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation heat collector.

            Don’t you get tired losing and banging your head against the wall? You lost. Get over it!

          • Bart_R

            Moon. Explain it.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Moon. Explain it.”
            Bend over. Pull both cheeks apart.

          • Bart_R
          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝The coral reefs are the most basic animal life … the most important for all other life.… ocean phytoplankton which supply most of our oxygen bloom from live coral reefs.❞

            HEY, Wallace! You’re saying that phytoplankton is really baby coral?

          • Wallace Frantz

            Where have I ever said that Voo-Dud? All plankton species bloom from live coral reefs .

            The coral reefs are just a nice place for the eggs to be laid. Check it out Voo-Dud, I am not going to be your teacher.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            EGGS? Plankton come from EGGS? That’s even better than baby corals.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Could be Voo-Dud…. Do you know where the microscopic sized green plant specie of phytoplankton come from Voo-Dud? Tell us all about it.

            I probably should have said seeds, but the WORD eggs is okay with me.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Asexual cell division of one into two … binary fission. No coral needed.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Citation?

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Wallace Frantz

            I can post hundreds of articles that do not mention where phytoplankton come from… You don’t believe there are eggs, I could have said seeds.

            Where do you believe the phytoplankton come from Voo-Dud, where do they bloom?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            They bloom wherever conditions are favourable, most commonly in the open ocean … no corals needed. Asexual cell division of one into two … binary fission.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You have a citation for that baloney Voo-Dud?

            I have one that shows on film phytoplankton blooming from a coral reef…. The tiny eggs or “seeds” float to the ocean water surface open into green plants and absorb CO2 and emit oxygen.

            https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=phytoplankton+bloom+from+coral+reefs&qpvt=phytoplankton+bloom+from+cora+reefs&qpvt=phytoplankton+bloom+from+cora+reefs&qpvt=phytoplankton+bloom+from+cora+reefs&FORM=IGRE

            That specie of phytoplankton produce most of our oxygen and sequester most of the carbon which is sequestered on our planet…

            What is your motive for arguing with me about it Voo-Dud?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            It is hard to find a citation, where the author or authors of a journal-published, peer reviewed science paper specifically states, “Wallace Frantz is wrong”.
            Bleaching corals is not nice. The expelled eukaryotic algae are plankton, but not all plankton is eukaryotic algae. Kiwi is a fruit, but not all fruits are Kiwi.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You are really dense Voo-Dud.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝a citation for that baloney …I have one that shows ❞

            That’s not a citation, that is a URL, and it comes up with many photographs. Be more specific.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Hey Voo-Dud; if you didn’t like that first link for phytoplankton blooming from coral reefs here is another from NASA that states the phytoplankton bloom from coral reefs.

            “Phytoplankton Bloom in the Great Barrier Reef NASA Earth Observatory image created by Jesse Allen, using data obtained from the Land Atmosphere Near-real time Capability for EOS”

            http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=51757

          • TheDudeofVoo

            The NASA article plainly states, PHYTOPLANKTON BLOOM IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF not “from” the reef. In the article itself, NASA clarifies that, as “… between the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland shore” i.e. not even over the reef, but in deeper water between the reef and the shore.

            The NASA article goes on to quote from Captain James Cook: “The Sea in many places is here cover’d with a kind of a brown scum, such as Sailors generally call spawn; upon our first seeing it, it alarm’d us, thinking we were among Shoals, but we found the same depth of Water were it was as in other places.”
            Notice, Cook thought he was “among shoals” (like, over a shallow place, like a reef) … but he discovered, “…found the same depth of Water as it was in other places” i.e, they were not over a reef. The were in the open ocean.

            NASA speculates that the image is of “Trichodesmium, a form of cyanobacteria…”

            NASA notes: “… single-celled organisms that grow in the ocean … photosynthesis like plants.” so they are a source of oxygen. Trichodesmium also fixes nitrogen …

            ” They play an important role in Earth’s oceans …” not reefs, oceans. i.e. open oceans. Sure, they can be found near reefs; but that does’t mean that they come from reefs, or are caused by reefs, or that they cause reefs.

            “Their blooms often occur in warm, nutrient-poor waters.” The nutrient levels in reefs are very high, which is why the density of life there, is also high. The open oceans, however, are often a nutrient ‘desert’.

            One of the references cited in this NASA article is “Introduction to the Cyanobacteria”
            http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html
            “Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic … bacteria,…”
            Okay, so are corals, from their symbiotic algae:
            “… benthic microbial communities produce their own hard substrate by sequestering raw inorganic materials from the surrounding seawater. For the next 2.5 billion years microbialites are represented by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)”
            http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eeeb/baker/N0316/Lecture%205/page2.htm
            So, corals and other phytoplankton both are photosynthetic … but one is not the other, and one does not produce the other. What you call “corals” or “coral reefs” are, presumably, scleractinian corals. They showed up about 220 million years ago, but became really dominant in the Holocene (the past, 10,000 or so years).

            “Since the Triassic (i.e., over the last 220 million years), scleractinian corals have become increasingly dominant as reef-builders. Diverse (molecular, stable isotopic, ecological) evidence suggests scleractinian corals formed symbioses with algae soon after their appearance in the fossil record.

            Holocene (Recent) reefs probably represent the most developed scleractinian reefs in geological history.”

            So, photosynthetic bacteria has been around a lot longer than scleractinian corals. Corals have symbiotic, photosynthetic eukaryotic algae, and Trichodesmium is also a photosynthetic algae, but one is not the other, and one does not cause the other, or give birth to the other. In fact, Trichodesmium kills scleractinian reefs.

            Charpy et al. 2012: “Cyanobacteria have dominated marine environments and have been reef builders on Earth for more than three million years (myr). Cyanobacteria still play an essential role in modern coral reef ecosystems by forming a major component of epiphytic, epilithic, and endolithic communities as well as of microbial mats. . Recently [as compared to millions of years] , new unicellular cyanobacteria that express nitrogenase [like Trichodesmium] were found in the open ocean and in coral reef lagoons.”
            “Cyanobacteria can also form pathogenic microbial consortia in association with other microbes on living coral tissues, causing coral tissue lysis and death, and considerable declines in coral reefs.”
            “This cyanobacterial [coral] fossil record is among the oldest of any group of organism, possibly reaching back to 3500 million years (myr) ago. Throughout the succeeding 3000 myr, many shallow reefs arose and provided a habitat for cyanobacteria. Modern corals are a relatively recent phenomenon; indeed, scleractinian corals first appeared 230 myr ago in the Triassic [2]. Although cyanobacteria have been supplanted to an extent by eukaryotic algae on modern coral reefs, especially by the dinoflagellate Symbiodinium sp. (zooxanthellae) and coralline red and green algae, they play an essential role in the ecology of modern reefs.”

            “Large blooms of Trichodesmium, a filamentous nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium, are observed frequently in coral reef ecosystems…” There is a tenuous link to what you claim … Trichodesmium are cyanobacteria, but are not green. Other kinds of phytoplankton also produce oxygen; some are green … they “…are observed frequently in coral reef ecosystems…” but nothing is said that Trichodesmium originates from coral reefs, or reproduces in coral reefs, or lays eggs in coral reefs … just that large blooms are observed frequently in coral reefs. It may be that coral reefs actually eat phytoplankton. In other words, maybe the association is that coral reefs do not produce phytoplankton, the coral reefs are there because the eat the phytoplankton. So, your contention that bleached corals will cause the demise of phytoplankton may be the reverse, perhaps bleached corals will cause a a large increase in phytoplankton!
            “Very few studies have investigated grazing of unicellular cyanobacteria in coral reef waters [101, 102]. In Tikehau lagoon (Tuamotu),Gonzálezet al. [104] showed that phagotrophic nanoflagellates were the major grazers of picocyanobacteria.”

            Again, not all of the oxygen-producing alga in the world’s oceans are cyanobacteria.

            “Cyanobacteria are ubiquitous in coral reef ecosystems:

            (i) as a part of the reef (Microbialites),
            (ii) inside (endoliths) and above (epiliths and epiphytes) the coral reef,
            (iii) as symbionts of sponges,
            (iv) covering soft bottoms as microbial mats,
            (v) in the water column.

            In addition, they have the following.
            (i) They help build and erode the reef.
            (ii) They are important primary producers.
            (iii) They represent an organic source for planktonic and benthic heterotrophic organisms.
            (iv) They enrich the ecosystem with nitrogen.”

            Charpy, Loïc, et al. 2012 “Cyanobacteria in coral reef ecosystems: a review.” Journal of Marine Biology

          • Wallace Frantz

            Yep, the phytoplankton bloom in the reef and that is where the phytoplankton come FROM. Phytoplankton bloome from coral reefs.

            Take your playing semantics with words and shove em Voo-Dud.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            So, show us all the cited literature that tells us that all phytoplankton comes FROM coral reefs.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Read all of the article from that Bing video article I posted for you Dud.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Your second URL discusses “Plankton of the Great Barrier Reef” but it might as well be titled, “Plankton of the worlds oceans” because, aside from the title and the footer, “reef” is not mentioned in the body of the article. It does mention that the symbiotic algae in corals is photosynthetic, and also grazes upon other life. Not that plankton is caused by the reef, or that plankton lays its eggs in the coral reef, or reproduces in the coral reef … it is just that the larger term, “plankton” includes the symbiotic algae that inhabit the corals, as well as the cyanobacteria mentioned by your first URL, in the NASA article.

            Tigers and Elephants are both mammalian animals. The are both found in zoos, and produce lots of poop… Just as coral’s eukaryotic algae, and Trichodesmium are both cyanobacteria and plankton, and produce lots of oxygen … but, if you destroy the zoos, tigers and elephants will still live elsewhere.

            “What is plankton?

            Plankton is a collective term for all the tiny plants, animals and bacteria that live in the open water column. These animals generally have no or little swimming ability, and are at the mercy of the ocean’s currents. Plankton is generally divided into 3 different classes based on their size:

            phytoplankton – microscopic plants and bacteria
            zooplankton – microscopic animals
            macro zooplankton – larger fish eggs and larvae and pelagic invertebrates

            Some types of plankton have special hairs called cilia that move the animal around in the water column.

            Is plankton good for the environment?

            All things in good measure! Plankton is a major natural food source for many of the oceans creatures, from whales that feed on krill, to corals that supplement their photosynthetic diet with animal larvae. However, when levels of nutrients are excessively high in the water, phytoplankton will bloom en masse, which depletes oxygen in the water column. This can cause problems for other marine life.

            Is plankton dangerous?

            The beautiful intricate structures of creatures like diatoms can be revealed when viewed under a microscope. However, many carry an arsenal of stinging spines and hooks to defend themselves from other predatory plankton. Occasionally, people will swim through swarms of these creatures and develop a red rash that is quite itchy. This is known as “sea lice”, a generic term that describes any planktonic creature that can cause a sting or minor skin irritation. Of course, we are going to cause much more harm to these small creatures than they could ever do!

            How do scientists study plankton?

            Plankton is collected using fine mesh nets, usually dropped over the side of a vessel. The samples are deposited into clear jars, and then transferred to smaller dishes to allow them to be studied under microscopes. The plankton sample is then usually divided into family level and, if possible, described to species level. Certain types of plankton can be used as biological indicators of water quality, making them very useful for scientists studying the ocean.”

          • Wallace Frantz

            Voo-Dud…. Algae isn’t phytoplankton. The article shows the green plant like phytoplankton which I have been discussing blooming from the reef….

            The same thing happens in all coral reefs and the other articles I posted show that.

            Go play with your kite Voo-Dud.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝ Algae isn’t phytoplankton ❞

            What a hoot!
            “All algae are plankton, but not all plankton are algae.”
            Even the alarmist web site, ORMA dot com, says so.
            http://orma.com/sea-life/plankton-facts/

          • Wallace Frantz

            Plankton…. Phytoplankton….

          • TheDudeofVoo

            All algae are phytoplankton … all phytoplankton is plankton

          • Wallace Frantz
          • TheDudeofVoo

            This is a citation:
            Charpy, Loïc, et al. 2012 “Cyanobacteria in coral reef ecosystems: a review.” Journal of Marine Biology

            It consists of a string that represents the author, or authors; then a numeric representation of the year that the paper was published in the journal, then, a string that conveys the title of the paper, then, the journal in which the paper was published.

            Authors year title journal

          • Wallace Frantz

            That is supposed to mean something about where phytoplankton bloom?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            No, but your assertion that the URL of a BING image search is a “citation” needed to be addressed.

          • Wallace Frantz

            There are dozens of artidles in that link Dummy. Hey Voo-Dud do you believe any besides me are reading your comments?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝There are dozens of artidles in that link Dummy❞

            That link does not list any articles. It is an IMAGE search on bing…
            “phytoplankton bloom from coral reefs”
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2d6f481cb67424cc68297670a63913c490a7149539fa6097647cbe2f348e5c89.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/918801ff696684ca5a94af9c4780f4240f76b104d5767bd102b37c0b01936ca2.jpg

          • Wallace Frantz

            BS Dud…. LOL>.. There are dozens of individual articles in the link… You are a liar Voo-Dud…

            You have nothing to argue here… I stated the green plant like specie of phytoplankton supply mot of our oxygen that they bloom from live coral reefs and the coral reefs are now bleaching out so severely due to warming ocean waters due to global warming that they are dying all around the globe.

            When the coral reefs are dead all life dies from lack of oxygen. That is all correct Voo-Dud. You are arguing just to try and look intelligent… You aren’t.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            No wonder you think the world is coming to an end, just because a small percentage of the world’s corals got bleached in the last El Niño.

            The Australian Government says 22% died.
            ”Die-off of corals (coral mortality) south of Port Douglas was highly variable by location, and many reefs escaped with little or no mortality. … Most reefs south of Cairns escaped major impacts. The strong latitudinal gradient and high variability of bleaching severity among reefs has left many reefs relatively unaffected and still in relatively good condition. Despite the bleaching event, the Great Barrier Reef remains in a much better state than many other coral reef ecosystems around the world.”

            ”The agency’s preliminary findings indicated 22 per cent of coral on the Reef died due to severe bleaching.”

            Authority, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2016. “Interim report: 2016 coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef.” Australian Government

            http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/3044/5/Interim%20report%20on%202016%20coral%20bleaching%20event%20in%20GBRMP.pdf

          • Wallace Frantz

            Well Voo Dud if it was just years when the ocean waters warmed to thpoint it was an El Nino year it would nt be a problem…

            By 2016 however the ocean waters had warmed to the point where there are most of our coral reefs that coral reefs bleached out so severely that they will not recover according to the many scientists who spend their adult lives studying coral reefs.

            Based upon the fact the atmospheric CO2 level is now over 400ppm and rising at 3 ppm a year, why would any sensible person believe the ocean waters are going to cool down and not continue to be warmer every year from now on and continue bleaching out the coral reefs and killing them?

            We must do all possible t greatly reduce our atmospheric CO2 level to less than 340ppm and do it fast or we will have that 6th global mass extinction due to a major loss of oxygen in our atmosphere.

            Why are you arguing about it Voo-Dud…. Because that is what you are paid to do.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Well, that is a boatload of tripe. Which one specific point do you want to argue next? Tell me how to get on that ‘gravy train’ of getting paid to argue … I’m not paid.
            Oceanic temperatures have been higher, and caused no mass extinctions. The oxygen level has been stable for a lot longer, too.
            What are you basing your fear on?

          • Wallace Frantz

            No tripe Voo-Dud…. Everything I wrote is accurate and backed up with credible scientific articles. I have said this previously but will repeat it just for you Voo-Dud.

            Ocean phytoplankton supply most of our oxygen.

            http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen

            From the article > (“Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere.”).

            I can assure you that almost all life will become extinct during the next mass extinction of life which will result from the current global warming caused by humanity burning fossil fuels.

            Let us connect the dots..

            Dote # 1……… Due to global warming the Arctic ice is disappearing at a fast rate which allows the Arctic’s permafrost to melt which allows massive amounts of CH4, methane gas to escape into the atmosphere, which increases the planet’s surface temperature, which included the ocean waters.

            2………… Due to warming ocean waters coral reefs all around the globe are dying…

            The coral reefs are not bleaching out in a minor manner this time in our recorded history, they are dying and unless ocean waters cool down they will not recover.

            Why will the ocean waters cool down in 2017, 18, on when the atmospheric CO2 level is now near the 40ppm level and is rising at near 3ppm a year?

            3………………. The microscopic sized green plant specie of ocean phytoplankton bloom from LIVE coral reefs.

            4…………… That specie of phytoplankton produce and supply most of our oxygen.

            5…………. When the coral reefs are mostly all dead, very little phytoplankton bloom and the our atmospheric oxygen levels begin to plummet….

            The result? The 6th mass extinction of life on Earth and it won’t be a long slow process.

            So connect those 5 rows of dots…. There is no logical, sensible or honest argument to deny what is now in full bloom progress.

            Here is a link for a very current article on the Great Barrier Reef. What is happening there in the Northern section of the GB Reef is happening all around the globe.

            We may have another 10 to 15 years but I won’t bet on it. …At the current rate things have been progressing I fear we may have the mass extinction before 2025.

            Not funny or fun Not fair for the children either. They didn’t cause the problem.

            http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/scientists-record-biggest-ever-coral-die-off-on-australias-great-barrier-reef/ar-AAkSwe7?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartandhp

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Ok, let’s start with number one.
            First off, the melting of the sea-ice in the arctic does not “allow” the tundra to melt.

            ❝ the Arctic ice is disappearing at a fast rate which allows the Arctic’s permafrost to melt ❞

            … So, the arctic sea-ice is melting … Here’s what you should be happy about … the sea-ice, when in place, acts like a blanket, inhibiting heat transfer from the warm ocean to space. When the Arctic sea-ice isn’t there, the heat transfer from the sea, in the absence of the ice, is one hundred times greater.

            NSIDC: ”Sea ice regulates exchanges of heat, moisture and salinity in the polar oceans. It insulates the relatively warm ocean water from the cold polar atmosphere, except where cracks, or leads, in the ice allow exchange of heat, and water vapour from ocean, to atmosphere, in winter. The number of leads determines where, and how much heat and water are lost to the atmosphere, which may affect local cloud cover and precipitation.”
            http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

            NSIDC: “Less ice also contributes to higher air temperatures by allowing transfer of heat from the relatively warmer ocean.”
            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/03/

            ”… the release of heat to the atmosphere from the open water is up to 100 times greater than the heat conducted through the ice.”

            Zwally, H. Jay, et al. Antarctic sea ice, 1973-1976: Satellite passive-microwave observations. No. NASA-SP-459. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC, 1983.
            http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA278193

            SO, if you think that the world is too hot, well, be thankful for the Arctic sea-ice melting. The earth, in a crude sense, gains heat at the equator, and transfers that heat, through winds and ocean currents, to the poles. That’s the way the earth works… Of course, there is some heat gain and some heat loss in the middle latitudes, but that’s more complicated.

            From roughly 2007 to about May of 2016 (that isn’t the end of the trend, it is just the latest data point tabulated at WFT) the total arctic sea-ice has been on the upswing …
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/28ccd2ac7c8121d28b9fac0621a7aacd91f41e4771fafbd7a6faac94ecf11c5f.jpg

            Arctic sea-ice shows an increase, year- to year- Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun (decimal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Conversely, 0, 7, 8, and 9 do not.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005.2/to:2016.2/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005.3/to:2016.3/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2003.4/to:2015.4/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2003.5/to:2015.5/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2009.6/to:2015.6/trend

            http://woodfortrees.org

            /plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005.2/to:2016.2/trend

            /plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005.3/to:2016.3/trend

            /plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2003.4/to:2015.4/trend

            /plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2003.5/to:2015.5/trend

            /plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2009.6/to:2015.6/trend

            Plotting Arctic Sea-Ice from Jan-Jan, Feb-Feb, Mar-Mar, et c. shows increasing late-winter, spring, and early summer ice extent

            Roughly February through August
            What we’re seeing is not a sea-ice decrease, but a shift of the peak of sea-ice, into later in the year.
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2010.1/to:2015.1/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005.2/to:2015.2/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2003.3/to:2015.3/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2003.4/to:2015.4/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2003.5/to:2015.5/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2009.6/to:2015.6/trend https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3917323becf231baebe328c5c09df24d9d3afb6936b7088f23b0544891d1557f.jpg

            Plotting Arctic Sea-ice for late summer, fall, early and mid-winter, shows a decrease

            September through January
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006.0/to:2015.0/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006.7/to:2015.7/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006.8/to:2015.8/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006.9/to:2015.9/trend https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82711853d3d5b49e1ced6984c5e38be9676079dd6830cc123b17000eb72e0f66.jpg

            (.oo) is January
            (.08) February
            (.16) March
            (.25) April
            (.33) May
            (.42) June
            (.50) July
            (.58) August
            (.67) September
            (.75) October
            (.83) November
            (.91) December

          • Wallace Frantz

            Your fist invalid point is incorrect… When the Arctic sea ice melts it does allow the subsea permafrost to also melt and the proof that is so is it has been melting since 2007 at a fast rate.

            Also when the temperature is high enough to melt off the Arctic sea ice it Is also high enough to melt off the land based permafrost… If you deny the Arctic permafrost is not melting you are not educated on the issue or you are a fool.

            All of your other arguments someof which are crazy rants have not a thing at all to do with what I posted in respect to ocean waters warming to the point where it is killing our coral reefs all around the globe and I have posted links for articles that backup what I wrote.

            Finally; anyone who would claim the loss of the Arctic sea and land ice is beneficial is either insane or just plain crazy…. Take your pick Voo-Dud.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝ … when the temperature is high enough to melt off the Arctic sea ice it Is also high enough to melt off the land based permafrost. ❞

            Wow, we agree.

            However, it isn’t always the surface air temperature that melts the Arctic sea-ice. It is the water temperature. The earth basically transports heat up to the poles with water currents (and some air currents). The water’s heat is … pretty much always and any time … the Arctic ocean has enough heat in the water to melt all of the ice, but… the ice is insulated from the heat, below, due to a thin layer of icy-cold water … it stays on top because it is fresher. The heat is contained in the much more saline water, below. Any churning of the water … like due to cyclonic effects of winds, can bring salty, warm water to the ice. Polyakov 2004 documented cyclic patterns to this warm water:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/596f4dfbdf1211dea72cbfaea54ca5a8a3d9fbb8bbca2675cb75cc7e8ec6e183.png
            Shimada 2005 documented the warm blobs: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c921999cfe7525cee93ab7e1845ba7330601169b39047fb0288dc9d5f9222b8.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8174b4f00bec90ebb76368ba77185f21b656d1c046db431eaccc94e48f32328.jpg

            ”The Arctic Ocean basin is filled by water from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as well as Arctic rivers. Sea-ice limits wind-driven vertical mixing throughout much of the year which, together with strong stratification supported by in-flowing waters, results in an ocean that is organized into several vertical layers ([Stein, R. and Macdonald, R. W.: The Organic Carbon Cycle in the Arctic Ocean, Springer, Berlin, 2004.]). Surface waters (0–30 m) are strongly influenced by freshwater from rivers and melting sea-ice.… while warm and salty Atlantic waters occupy intermediate depths (250– 1500 m) and lie above the isolated deep water. … A particularly important feature of the Arctic Ocean is the strong perennial cold halocline, which insulates surface waters (and sea-ice) from warm and salty Atlantic waters below ([Shimada, K., Itoh, M., Nishino, S., McLaughlin, F., Carmack, E., and Proshutinsky, A.: Halocline structure in the Canada basin of the arctic ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L03605, doi:10.1029/2004GL021358, 2005.]).”

            Griffith, David R., et al. 2012 “Carbon dynamics in the western Arctic Ocean: insights from full-depth carbon isotope profiles of DIC, DOC, and POC.” Biogeosciences

            http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/5155/bg-9-1217-2012.pdf?sequence=1

            ”The Arctic cold halocline, consisting of waters near the freezing temperature, has been recognized as an important feature of the Arctic Ocean [Aagaard et al., 1981]. It shields the surface mixed layer from the upward flux of heat and salt in the underlying Atlantic layer.”

            Shimada, Koji, et al. 2005 “Halocline structure in the Canada Basin of the Arctic Ocean.” Geophysical Research Letters

            http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Motoyo.pdf

            ”The spatial pattern of recent ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean is similar to the distribution of warm Pacific Summer Water (PSW) that interflows the upper portion of halocline in the southern Canada Basin. Increases in [Pacific Summer Water] temperature in the basin are also well-correlated with the onset of sea-ice reduction that began in the late 1990s. However, increases in [Pacific Summer Water] temperature in the basin do not correlate with the temperature of upstream source water in the northeastern Bering Sea, suggesting that there is another mechanism which controls these concurrent changes in ice cover and upper ocean temperature. We propose a feedback mechanism whereby the delayed sea-ice formation in early winter, which began in 1997/1998, reduced internal ice stresses and thus allowed a more efficient coupling of anticyclonic wind forcing to the upper ocean. This, in turn, increased the flux of warm [Pacific Summer Water] into the basin and caused the catastrophic changes.”

            Shimada, Koji, et al. 2006 “Pacific Ocean inflow: Influence on catastrophic reduction of sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean.” Geophysical Research Letters

            ”Isolated from drifting ice by a fresh and cold surface layer, the intermediate [warm and salty Atlantic water] carries vast quantities of heat. … Released into the upper ocean, this heat has the potential to melt substantial quantities of Arctic ice.”

            ”Enhanced transport of warmer air from lower latitudes (Serreze et al. 1997) leads to increased arctic surface air temperature (SAT; Martin et al. 1997; Rigor et al. 2000) associated with decreased arctic sea level pressure (SLP), increased polar atmospheric cyclonicity (Walsh et al. 1996), and storminess (Zhang et al. 2004). Concurrent with these atmospheric changes are reductions in arctic ice extent (Johannessen et al. 1995; Maslanik et al. 1996; Cavalieri et al 2003; Vinje 2001) and a decrease of ice thickness (Rothrock et al. 1999; Tucker et al. 2001).”

            ”Both observations (Woodgate et al. 2001) and modeling (Karcher et al. 2003) indicate a highly variable nature of the [warm and salty Atlantic water] flow, with abrupt cooling/warming events that complicate the investigation of long-term variability in the [warm and salty Atlantic water].”

            ”In contrast to the warming of the 1990s, the 1930s warm period in the Arctic did not coincide with a positive phase of the NAO”

            Polyakov, I. V., et al. 2004 “Variability of the intermediate Atlantic water of the Arctic Ocean over the last 100 years.” Journal of Climate

            http://www.liberterre.fr/gaiasophia/gaia-climats/dioxyde-carbone/z-pdf-carbone/polyakov.etal.2004.pdf

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025624/full

            ”…heat from the AW might rise to the surface, where even a few watts per meter squared can melt substantial amounts of ice [Maykut and Untersteiner, 1971].”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/98JC00580/asset/jgrc7354.pdf?v=1&t=i4rh535e&s=e3ebed3fb34bdf4da18203e9506935c650fb261c

            Steele, Michael, and Timothy Boyd 1998. “Retreat of the cold halocline layer in the Arctic Ocean.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝… anyone who would claim the loss of the Arctic’s sea and land ice is beneficial …❞

            Even bad things have a good side.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Since we have had a heavily oxygenated atmosphere for a long time, lots of elemental carbon, sulphur, and other stuff has become oxidized. Interaction between things keeps our atmosphere fairly well regulated, between 19% and 21% oxygen, most of the time (up to 35%, down to 10% over a longer time period). Most oxygen is generated by the plants in the ocean, but, a large part is from plants on the surface, which burn. If the oxygen level goes up, plants burn more … and it seems to be non-linear. Explosive fires occur at slightly above 21%, burning off the oxygen, and a significant portion of plant life that would put the oxygen right back into the atmosphere. Digging through the mud, ya know, dated core samples, etc we know that fires have been with us, continuously, for 300 Million years … Below about 17% oxygen, even dry paper fails to stay lit … so, because of the charcoal in the mud, we know that oxygen levels have been above 17% for 300M years. Now, 350My is a really long time. That covers a lot of really warm oceanic temperatures, well above what we have now. For example, Yan 2014 did a stable-isotope analysis of shells of giant clams … picking up the signal for Sea Surface Temperature in the South China Sea … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcdd02aab66eef3bec20482fba7175d22109277f3d83fb1f465abf6dde92fe08.jpg
            So, you can see, the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) and the Roman Warm Period had peak SST above anything seen in that area curing the “current warm period” (CWP)
            Some spikes 2°C higher!

          • Wallace Frantz

            The past and or current oxygen levels are not the issue Voo-Dud….

            The issue is what happens to oxygen levels when the coral reefs are mostly dead and the phytoplankton are mostly all gone.

            Connect the dots Voo-Dud.

            Btw; an oxygen level of only 10% would most certainly insure a mass extinction… We have to have more than a 18% for a healthy oxygen level though that would be livable.

            the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) and the Roman Warm Period were not global warming periods and are not relevant to the now warming ocean waters’ where it is killing coral reefs. Don’t bring up “Strawman” arguments as it don’t work.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            The MCA Medieval Warming Period MWP – as documented in the sea-surface temperatures OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (below) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcdd02aab66eef3bec20482fba7175d22109277f3d83fb1f465abf6dde92fe08.jpg
            is not a “Northern Hemisphere” claim… Duh. It shows the temperatures nearby the Great Barrier Reef and lots of other reefs. QED, warmer than now … no oxygen problem

            Below is the MWP Project … hundred of papers that show the MPW was global.

            This map has ‘clickable’ icons that direct you to the papers. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zvwgQ0tAjx_k.keO5eR4ueHXE
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb2de545e5ffd3baf26c9c961e0e125e0348e0c18909b9a85d186e3176d14c1f.jpg

            MWM mapping project in Google KML format: http://kaltesonne.de/mapping-the-medieval-warm-period/

            Home page of the MWP MCA mapping project using Javascript: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb2de545e5ffd3baf26c9c961e0e125e0348e0c18909b9a85d186e3176d14c1f.jpg

          • Wallace Frantz

            Voo-Dud…. A recent 2014 peer reviewed study.

            From the article > (“The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a 400-year span from about 950 to 1220 A.D. when the Vikings colonized Greenland, was relatively balmy by the standards of the past 2,000 years, leading some to argue that the global warming we’re now experiencing isn’t that big a deal. But a new report in the journal Geology argues that the MWP wasn’t all that warm after all — and certainly not as warm as the climate is today.”).

            A warming South China Sea years ago was not severe warming waters of the oceans all around the globe where coral reefs are abundent.

            Your long winded arguments are worthless GW Denier yammering Voo-Dud.

            http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Wally, no wonder you’re so full of angst. You hang out at Climate Central, an alarmist web site … that is no place to get unbiased news.

            You honestly want me to worry about Svalbard’s temperature? ❝According to William D’Andrea of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and his co-authors, summer temperatures in the Svalbard Archipelago, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean about 400 miles north of Norway, have been between 3.6°F and 4.5°F higher over the past 25 years, on average, than the summers the Vikings enjoyed.❞

            So, we’re talking about coral death wiping out the world’s oxygen supply. Do you really think that Svalbard is a great source of coral-based oxygen “green plankton” photosynthesis?

            The abundance of corals … mostly scleractinian coral that has its origins recently, within the Holocene … tropical and sub-tropical scleractinian coral … that you worry about … has a better representation of Holocene temperature as shown by The South China Sea than in the Arctic Ocean about 400 miles north of Norway. Thus, although you found a cherry-picked spot that was warmer now (supposedly) than in the Holocene’s past, the temperatures documented closer to the equator, such as Yan 2014
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcdd02aab66eef3bec20482fba7175d22109277f3d83fb1f465abf6dde92fe08.jpg
            Clearly, this is more appropriate than the Arctic. It shows than, in the past few thousand years, Sea Surface temperatures have been higher, and sustained that temperature for longer, than the present warm period. Massive coral death and oxygen deficit did not occur then … why should it, now?
            Or, try the Bermuda Rise… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f458d180e9ccea2547ce6140b486768b763067e1539ce825bb77518c559eedc6.jpg
            It shows than, in the past few thousand years, Sea Surface temperatures have been higher, and sustained that temperature for longer, than the present warm period. Massive coral death and oxygen deficit did not occur then … why should it, now?
            or the Sargasso Sea …
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/54835be927a980abeb20451a890aac29e5ce5608c592560c6855302b3f685669.jpg
            all far more tropical, or sub-tropical … much more appropriate for coral reefs than a record of Arctic island temperatures … It shows than, in the past few thousand years, Sea Surface temperatures have been higher, and sustained that temperature for longer, than the present warm period. Massive coral death and oxygen deficit did not occur then … why should it, now?
            More Paleo SST data:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/28e5e45fa2aa1cf89e91efda0a3b7f9b05f3b39ac1f27eaa4f79e5e74a5c01ab.jpg It shows than, in the past few thousand years, Sea Surface temperatures have been higher, and sustained that temperature for longer, than the present warm period. Massive coral death and oxygen deficit did not occur then … why should it, now?

          • Wallace Frantz

            I hangout no place Voo-Dud… The articles I posted links for the oceanographers who study coral reefs state they are not going to recover this time and that will continue now with such a high atmospheric CO2 level which is now rising at 3ppm a year…

            I’d much rather hear good news Voo-Dud.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝ The articles I posted links for… ❞

            You say that, but I’ve not seen any citations… You’re full of hot air.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            So, what do we know about “coral bleaching” in the past? How do we know that what we’re seeing is somehow abnormal?

            Listen to the scientists:

            Dishon 2015: ”…there is no scientific data on historical coral bleaching prior to 1979”

            ”While bleaching events have been proposed to occur throughout the geological record … there has been no experimentally established proxy to examine suspected paleo-coral bleaching.”

            ”…our findings provide evidence that coral bleaching may not be an exclusively modern phenomenon and we have identified at least two instances since the LGM (∼ 20 kyr BP) prior to the industrial revolution where coral bleaching likely occurred.”

            Dishon, G., et al. 2015 “A novel paleo-bleaching proxy using boron isotopes and high-resolution laser ablation to reconstruct coral bleaching events” Biogeosciences

            http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/5677/2015/bg-12-5677-2015.pdf

            Schoepf 2014 tells us that brief bleaching events are not adequately recorded in boron proxy data.
            So, we don’t know what ‘bleaching’ was like, in the past… not even the real recent past.

            Here we see that CO2 didn’t do it, it was slack winds… An anomalous high sea surface temperature, caused by unusually light winds, caused mass coral bleaching in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands:

            Friedlander 2005: ”The [Northwestern Hawaiian Islands] were impacted by mass coral bleaching during late summer 2002 (Aeby et al., 2003; Kenyon et al., in review). No records of mass coral bleaching in the [Northwestern Hawaiian Islands] exist before this time, and it was previously thought that the [Northwestern Hawaiian Islands] was less susceptible to bleaching due to its high latitude location. … [The] prolonged period of elevated [sea-surface temperature] coincided with a prolonged period of anomalously light wind speed, suggesting decreased wind and wave mixing of the upper ocean (Hoeke et al., 2004a, b). ”

            ”The first documented bleaching event in the [main Hawaiian Islands] was reported in 1996 (Jokiel and Brown, 2004).”

            Friedlander, Alan, et al. 2005 “The state of coral reef ecosystems of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.” The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific freely associated states

            http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coralreef/coral_report_2005/nwhi_ch10_c.pdf

          • Wallace Frantz

            Nope Voo-Dud…. Try 2016 articles on coral bleaching Like the ones I have posted. Anything less than the summer of 2015 is the past for coral bleaching btw.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Voo-Dud… You want to know what do we know about coral reef bleaching… What do we know ?… We know a lot if you read and understand what is published.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/world/asia/climate-related-death-of-coral-around-world-alarms-scientists.html?_r=0

            One quote from the article > (“This is a huge, looming planetary crisis, and we are sticking our heads in the sand about it,” said Justin Marshall, the director of CoralWatch at Australia’s University of Queensland.”).

            Yes indeed; and Voo-is one with his head stuck in the,,, in the,,, in the,,, sand.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            That’s the way it goes, between you and me, wally. I cite real science articles, peer reviewed, published in restrictive scientific journals, and you cite the Guardian and the New York Times.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Voo-Dud…. The article s I cited cite scientists who have earned their PhDs in the correct fields of science and if you disagree with the scientists listed in the articles I linked state where they are wrong. You cited no current 2016 peer reviewed articles when the very serious coral bleaching occurred so you are a dam liar to boot.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Okay, when bleaching occurs, lots of scientific papers get published, documenting the bleaching … many with dire predictions of future non-recovery… It takes a while for coral to recover from a bleaching, and then, it takes a while longer for scientists to document and observe the recovery. So, you won’t find papers related to the recovery of the 2016 bleaching, in 2016! Look around, 2016 hasn’t even ended yet. I’ve pointed out that Sea Surface Temperatures have been higher, in the past (for longer, too) and there was no massive oxygen deficit from it. I pointed to SST records in the South China Sea … which is about in the middle of the current coral disturbances:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ed95c1f578d6a771737d90fdefda72dc6689f717c98113f4764b138db22fd39.jpg
            A paleotemperature paper shows the region had higher SST in the past:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/484eaa5b9e4c768fc05e23b732bb0bf652ba852ba993e92b2c9ec2830867a844.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/10ec4c25a5f327ad55c271a238b491904dbb9556fa41d402f7029937512dc352.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Perhaps you’d feel better if you read some up-beat scientific papers about the recovery from coral bleaching events …

            ”…symbiont types in bleaching intensity, survival and recovery of Acopora millepora. We show that the relative abundances of symbiont types are dynamic, and that coral survival and recovery following bleaching is associated with an increase in the relative abundance of D-type symbionts through shuffling. We define a threshold minimum density of background D above which recovery and survival was enhanced…”

            ”Water temperatures at the transplant site were within 2°C of local long-term averages for corals from the three source populations from April to September 2005 but elevated by up to 4°C for extended periods between September and December… 25% of Keppels corals survived. No mortality was observed in Magnetic Island corals…”

            ”…symbiont type changed substantially in the Keppels corals over the course of the experiment, but not in Davies Reef and Magnetic Island corals”

            Bay 2016: ”Our results confirmed that D-dominated corals are more tolerant to elevated temperatures [5,23,24,48] with all D-dominated colonies but one resisting bleaching regardless of their source population and historical thermal regime. Interestingly, 37.5% of Keppels corals increased their abundance of D over time despite the absence of measurable levels of this type at the beginning of the experiment. This pattern was also found in Montastraea cavernosa by Silverstein et al. [48] and LaJeunesse et al. [24]. ”

            ”It is well established that the identity and diversity of Symbiodinium complements greatly affect fundamental aspects of the ecology of their coral hosts including growth rate, resistance to and recovery from environmental stress [3,33] and that multiple Symbiodinium types may be present in low abundance in many (or possibly the majority) of coral species (reviewed in [3]).”

            Bay, Line K., et al. 2016 “Recovery from bleaching is mediated by threshold densities of background thermo-tolerant symbiont types in a reef-building coral.” Royal Society Open Science

          • Wallace Frantz

            Voo- Dud >>>> I’d feel a lot better if the hundreds of oceanographers and oceanic bio-chemists who have been studying coral reefs for many year would not say the current coral reef bleaching is so severe the reefs will not recover and they don’t expect that to change now with an atmospheric CO2 level over 400ppm and rising at 3ppm a year.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Read other oceanographers. You feed yourself with alarmist web sites, and they will not tell you about the other opinions.
            Atmospheric levels of CO2 exceeding 400 ppm has little to do with it… The “climate sensitivity” has been over valued… The logarithmic nature of CO2 and most “Greenhouse” gases illustrates that the first 20 ppm added to a CO2-free atmosphere has a profound effect on the temperature. But, each increment (this graph does it in 20ppm linear increments) has less and less of an effect..
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12e5e1e3973bd7db063fcadb2c8d30b1b2923e0014f8aad178330f1f9d4c2c24.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f647ba487a981b03523ffb05bc1738be6c63f5be900296453e155e59b921e610.jpg

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝ I’d feel a lot better if the hundreds of oceanographers and ❞

            so say you. Hundreds, you claim.
            in the 1931 book, “Hundert Autoren gene Einstein” (A Hundred scientists Against Einstein) various people formed a ‘consensus’ against relativity – Einstein was reported to have quipped, that if he were wrong, then just one author would have been enough. See, it doesn’t matter that hundreds of oceanographers and bio-chemists have one idea… Science is unaffected by the weight of people … and one solitary scientist can fell them all at once .. but, they, with their ideas “mortally” wounded, will continue for quite a while, battling the ‘heretic’ …
            14Carbon-dating seemed to be a great thing … irrefutable, so it seemed, based upon “scientific fact” … then, a freshly killed seal near Antarctica, in 1959, was radiocarbon-dated to an astounding (wrong) age of 1,300 years old. That (and other flaws) caused a serious correction to the 14C “dating” technique … … Book, “Antarctic Earth Science” By R. L. Oliver, P. R. James
            Page 450, K. Omoto Department of Geography, Tohoku University
            “The problem and significance of radiocarbon geochronology in Antarctica”
            Gordon, John E., and Douglas D. Harkness 1992. “Magnitude and geographic variation of the radiocarbon content in Antarctic marine life: implications for reservoir corrections in radiocarbon dating.” Quaternary Science Reviews
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027737919290078M

          • TheDudeofVoo

            I’m sure you’ll feel better when you read about all the research that supports coral recovery after bleaching …

            Guest 2012: ”Here we examine the extent of spatial and temporal variation in thermal tolerance among scleractinian coral taxa and between locations during the 2010 thermally induced, large-scale bleaching event in South East Asia.”

            ”Comparisons of bleaching susceptibility within coral taxa, and among locations, revealed no significant differences between locations with similar thermal histories, but significant differences between locations with contrasting thermal histories (Friedman = 34.97; p<0.001). Bleaching was much less severe at locations that bleached during 1998, that had greater historical temperature variability and lower rates of warming. Remarkably, Acropora and Pocillopora, taxa that are typically highly susceptible, although among the most susceptible in Pulau Weh (Sumatra, Indonesia) where respectively, 94% and 87% of colonies died, were among the least susceptible in Singapore, where only 5% and 12% of colonies died.”

            ”… coral populations that bleached during the last major warming event in 1998 have adapted and/or acclimatised to thermal stress. These data also lend support to the hypothesis that corals in regions subject to more variable temperature regimes are more resistant to thermal stress than those in less variable environments.”

            ”… a growing body of evidence indicates that the capacity for adaptation and acclimatisation in corals has been underestimated [13,21,26]. Even for highly susceptible coral species, variation in specific characteristics of the symbiotic zooxanthellae [27] and the coral host [28] lead to different bleaching responses among colonies. Selective mortality among individuals within populations suggests there is sufficient genetic variability upon which natural selection can act [29]. Several studies have documented increasing thermal tolerance and declining rates of bleaching induced mortality over successive bleaching episodes [21,30]. Similarly, thermal history and previous exposure to thermal stress have been shown to determine bleaching responses to contemporary thermal stress [13]. The most compelling evidence of an adaptive response at our study locations is that the taxa that showed the greatest contrast in response (Acropora and Pocillopora), have life history traits most likely to lead to rapid adaptation.”

            Guest, James R., et al. 2012 “Contrasting patterns of coral bleaching susceptibility in 2010 suggest an adaptive response to thermal stress.” PLoS One

            http://blueventures.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/coral-bleaching-susceptibility.pdf

          • Wallace Frantz

            Voo-Dud. ___ Coral reefs which bleached out in the past over time usually fully recovered.

            What is happening now is not the same as the PAST Voo Dud. Now the atmospheric CO2 level is at the 400ppm level and oceanographers and oceanic bio-chemists who have been studying the reefs for many years say the bleaching which is occurring now is so severe the reefs will not recover.

            Read the articles I posted links for.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            You don’t post anything that is of value. Pick one, proper, bibliographic citation, not some vague BING image search.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝ Coral reefs … usually fully recovered. … now is not the same as the PAST… atmospheric CO2 level is at the 400ppm level …❞

            So, what was the CO2 level during the 2016 El Niño, when 78% of corals in the great barrier reef, survived?

            ”Die-off of corals (coral mortality) south of Port Douglas was highly variable by location, and many reefs escaped with little or no mortality. … Most reefs south of Cairns escaped major impacts. The strong latitudinal gradient and high variability of bleaching severity among reefs has left many reefs relatively unaffected and still in relatively good condition. Despite the bleaching event, the Great Barrier Reef remains in a much better state than many other coral reef ecosystems around the world.”

            ”The agency’s preliminary findings indicated 22 per cent of coral on the Reef died due to severe bleaching.”

            Authority, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2016. “Interim report: 2016 coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef.” Australian Government

            http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/11017/3044/5/Interim%20report%20on%202016%20coral%20bleaching%20event%20in%20GBRMP.pdf

            …and what was the Atmospheric CO2 level, during the mass coral bleaching of the 1998 El Niño?

          • Wallace Frantz

            Tell it all Voo-Dud… In 2016 75% of the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef bleached out in 2015 and died and will not recover and scientists say that will continue from now on until the GWR is mostly all dead.

            http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/scientists-record-biggest-ever-coral-die-off-on-australias-great-barrier-reef/ar-AAkSwe7?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartandhp

            http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/38991/20160502/scientists-reveal-that-93-of-great-barrier-reef-are-already-bleached.htm

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Wally, the Great Barrier Reef is over 2,900 smaller reefs, encompassing 900 islands, and it is over 2,300 kilometres… and you cherry-pick a 700km stretch and claim that 2⁄3 of coral in that 700km segment died … so, what does that say about the whole reef? 700 is 0.304 (about 1⁄3) of the whole 2,300km. 2⁄3 of 0.304 is 0.203, so the total reef death (assuming none, on the rest of the GBR) is maybe 21%, which means that 79% of the reef was not affected. That is better than the 78% that I claimed! Thanks for independently confirming my source.

            Published: 03/06/2016, updated 08Jun:Despite reported claims and counter claims over the last month about the ‘death’ of large swathes of the Great Barrier Reef, … Preliminary findings from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) show approximately three quarters of coral on the Reef has survived to date.”

            ”The vast majority of the impact is in the northern third of the Reef, … with the central and southern regions escaping significant mortality.”

            Gunn: ”❝… many corals in the northern sector will die, others will recover from bleaching over the coming months and we’re hopeful that in areas where bleaching has been minor the Reef will bounce back well.❞”

            Reichelt: ”❝… the overall mortality is 22 per cent — …❞”
            the overall survival is 78%

            Reichelt: ”❝… the Australian Institute of Marine Science found coral cover increased by 19 per cent across the Marine Park between 2012 and 2015, nearly doubling in the southern sector…❞”

            ”More information on coral bleaching is available at http://www.gbrmpa[DOT]gov[DOT]au and http://www.aims[DOT]gov[DOT]au .”

            http://www.gbrmpa[DOT]gov[DOT]au/media-room/latest-news/coral-bleaching/2016/the-facts-on-great-barrier-reef-coral-mortality

          • Wallace Frantz

            I didn’t cherry pick a thing… I posted a link for very current and credible articles about the current 2016 bleaching of coral reefs.

            If yo disagree with what the scientists stated, speak up and tell what they said is incorrect. Any who really care about your arguments with me can read the articles I linked and see the truth of the issue.

            Btw Dud; I happen to know how large the GBR is.. Have been there several times.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Plankton is too vague … be more specific. Plankton include Zooplankton, Bacterioplankton and Phytoplankton.
            Jellyfish are, technically, plankton.
            “Plankton is not the name of a plant or animal but more of a category for any drifting organism that inhabits the middle to upper levels of the ocean, namely the pelagic zone.”
            “All algae are plankton, but not all plankton are algae. Algae are considered phytoplankton ….”
            http://orma.com/sea-life/plankton-facts/

            “Phytoplankton is made of very tiny–usually one-celled–plants. … It is estimated that 80% of the oxygen on earth is produced by phytoplankton.”

            “Diatoms are the most common type of phytoplankton. They are single-celled yellow algae …

            Dinoflagellates are like both plants and animals…”
            http://www.whoi.edu/science/B/people/kamaral/plankton.html

            Phytoplankton also is too vague. It includes Cyanobacteria, Diatoms,
            It is similar to saying, “Where does LIFE come from” as opposed to something specific, like,
            “How does Trichodesmium reproduce?”

          • Wallace Frantz

            Voo-Dud… I have stated several times the green plant like specie of phytoplankton.

            Then the links I posted show that specie of phytoplankton blooming from coral reefs and then sequestering carbon and emitting oxygen…

            Of course the phytoplankton are not actually plants but behave as plants sequestering carbon and emitting oxygen and they produce most of our oxygen…. When they are gone we are in serious trouble and that was my first post here….

            Take your AGW denial arguments to Anthony Watts Voo-Dud.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Not all oxygen-producing plankton is green. Coral’s symbiotic cyanobacteria is not green. Trichodesmium is not green.
            So, do you want to drop your assertion that bleached coral will cause us all to die of oxygen deprivation, and, instead, move on to the larger “green plants sequestering carbon and emitting oxygen” and state why you think that they are going to be “gone”?

            A little bit of a warmer ocean surface causes coral bleaching … but it is entirely madness, to state that coral bleaching will cause us all to die of oxygen starvation.

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Wallace Frantz

            That’s you Voo-Dud.

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Robert

            Seems like d r spent a lot of time yesterday accusing people of lying.

            And not citing anything to support his version of science.

          • CB

            “Seems like d r spent a lot of time yesterday accusing people of lying.”

            Maybe some day he’ll locate that mirror he’s been looking for… I’m tempted to believe Mr. Russell is actually a gullible sap who was conned into buying a wildcat operation in the Permian basin… and he’s just desperately trying to make that unethical decision an ethical one. I do not think his posts should be flagged as spam, since he doesn’t appear to be using the same propaganda tactics that Barbie and the clown show like to use… He’s a sad case!

            “November 30, 2016: ESA’s CryoSat satellite has found that the Arctic has one of the lowest volumes of sea ice of any November, matching record lows in 2011 and 2012.”

            phys.org/news/2016-11-arctic-sea-ice-growth-slower.html

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Bart_R
          • ROO2
          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Bart_R

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:103/mean:101

            Climates are 30 year events; it takes at least 17 years (204 months = 103 + 101) to get a 95% reliable representation of climate trends.

            Your odd cherry pick without reason?

            Meaningless.

          • ROO2

            LOL. Are you for real?

          • TheDudeofVoo

            WFT. Not me, WFT represents the real data. It is a bit behind the times (2016.42) but … that’s real.

          • Bart_R
          • Robert

            Well that just blows up some alternative fizziques’ dissertation plan…
            “…existence of teeter totters doesn’t disprove gravity…”

          • ROO2

            Your trend analysis has brought much amusement.

            I thank you TheVD.

          • Robert

            I’m thinking an interesting resource evaluation lesson would be to compare made up graphs v the graphs from published research.

          • ROO2

            Either that or preventing any airtime for idiots, make save a few bucks.

          • Robert

            Ah… I see you have self evidenced ‘proofers’ trying to equate their original research with journal published science. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/something_really_crazy_is_happening_in_the_arctic/#comment-3039043147

          • CB

            “I see you have self evidenced ‘proofers’ trying to equate their original research with journal published science.”

            FFS… Photoshop jockeys… So comical! My favourites are the charts where he pastes a big arrow in the opposite direction of the trend…

            http://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/87_Q10-temp-anomaly-740px.jpg

        • Tom Yulsman

          Mr. BBQman: If you want to keep commenting here, show at least a modicum of respect. Be serious, or you will be gone.

          • BBQman

            Ok.

          • CB

            “Ok.”

            Still waiting for the seriousness to begin…

            “In general, the amount of water vapor in the troposphere does not vary significantly over time so long as temperatures remain stable. However, if some external forcing causes tropospheric temperatures to increase, there will be a water vapor feedback.”

            http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2

          • BBQman

            Earth’s tilt Looking at the interrelationships and sequential order of our naturally occurring orbital eccentricities and ever changing equatorial tilt, the influence of the sun, moon and primarily our outer planets such as Neptune, Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus with it’s gaseous effects that influence the convolutions of magnetic forcings, which influence our own magnetic field and outer molten core, which influences our oceans conveyance which impacts the mechanics of our jet stream, which in turn has a substantial impact on our climate, I would humbly state that our climate is within the normal boundaries of how it has always preformed, of course abundant volcanic outputs and changes in solar cycles can and do interrupt these every day climate drivers, CO2 is not a primary climate driver as some believe but have never proved.

            With all that said, and after reviewing the position of the outer gaseous planets and their magnetic relationship to earth, we should be entering a period where our Equatorial tilt will move the northern hemisphere 0.7 degrees further out of the direct line of solar radiance for the winter months over the next 30 plus years before a slow shift back the other way.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1c618d2e246aaccdb30b2dee049fd039523dbd3e30c7c043adfa690a058a3fc.gif

          • CB

            “CO2 is not a primary climate driver”

            If there’s a stronger driver of Earth’s temperature than CO₂, we should see examples of this driver causing polar ice sheets to form with CO₂ as high as we have today. Why don’t we see that, Barbie?

            vimeo.com/34099316

          • Bart_R

            Effects of planetary bodies vary as an inverse of the fourth power of distance. As such, the outer planets have less influence on the inner planets and sun than even moderate-sized asteroids in the inner planet orbital plane. The calculations are left as an exercise for the reader.

            Your claims are, as usual, mathematically absurd.

            Oh, and your graph copied without attribution from Delingpole? You’ve had explained to you how anomaly has been abused to create a fictional impression. Satellites use the same base year range for anomaly calculation; GISS uses an earlier range. The correction factor for satellite to compare to GISS is ~0.4315, remember?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978.9/plot/rss/offset:0.431514/plot/uah6/offset:0.431514/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.9/normalise/offset:0.431514

            That’s the competent presentation of what Delingpole’s graph is misrepresenting.

            We covered this ten days ago. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/2016_on_track_to_smash_record_for_warmest_year_globally/#comment-3018612323

          • BBQman

            You have debunked nothing, you still can not grasp that it is not the effects of the gaseous planets electromagnetic forces on the earth directly, but their ability to draw off some of the electromagnetic force emissions from the Sun before they impact earth.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Another word salad of pseudo scientific gobbledygook from BBQ.

          • BBQman

            CO2 as a significant green house gas and climate driver is scientific gobbledygook, CO2 is a byproduct of energy, CO2 does not create energy or store energy after 345 ppm.

          • jmac

            Derp, just derp! Trump University level derp!

          • BBQman

            Please stay on topic and show at least a modicum of respect, or you will be brought to Tom Yolsman’s attention! My post at the top of the thread is the topic. You know I can flag you after all, and I have only flaged about 12 posts in the last two years, so if I flag you, I mean business Anaussieinswitzerland, be careful, be wise…..and above all…be attentive when I explain climate drivers to you.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Your post is, as always, irrelevant other than as a warning to others of the dangers of excessive self abuse while watching bad science fiction movies.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Flag away, you poor, deluded moron.
            You obviously have a massive adequacy complex that prevents you recognising the innate stupidity of every post you put on these boards.

          • jmac

            You know, with how easily led these people are, like BBQ, it would almost be criminal if we didn’t start making up fake news sites, concern trolling the cons and wiging out some of them ourselves.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            It took about a year to get rid of OOPIT.

            BBQ must get nervous every time he logs on in case his account is gone.

          • jmac

            I know. :)

            But in a way it’s good to keep him around, so you can show how stupid he and his clan of upvoters are. :)

          • Bart_R

            READ HARDER.

            Magnetic effects of planets vary as the inverse of the fourth power of distance.

            (Gaseous planets have low magnetic influence in their own regions in the first place.)

            Rocky asteroids near the inner planets have far more influence on Earth than do the outer planets due the distances involved.

            And rocky asteroid influence is so small and random as to have zero detectible signal on global temperature.

            The Hale Cycle showed some ten orders of magnitude correlation higher than computable magnetic influence of asteroids, and the Hale Cycle’s correlation with global temperature disappeared six decades ago as CO2 levels rocketed up (pun intended) and overwhelmed the natural signal.

            You’re repeated the crackpot pseudoscience theories of astronomer Nicola Scafetta, a man whose claims amount to the equivalent of saying magnetism’s influence on Earth’s climate gets more powerful the more distant the sources are, yet does not explain why stars many times — literally astronomically — more distant have no influence at all. Scafetta’s reasoning is absurd, and your use of it has no basis in physical reality.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Sparafucile

            It seems you welcome propagandists and trolls without admonishment, though. Evidence: the flurry on nonresponsive bot-assisted posts by known CAGW troll “CB”, above. Or Wallace’s comments, like “simplistic ignorant and actually stupid “.

            But you’re blaming the victim…

          • RealOldOne2

            “But you’re blaming the victim…”
            Exactly. When you read through the entire comments, it’s the climate alarmists who incessantly are showing no modicum of respect, with their “You’re an idiot” & “You’re a moron” & “F Off you ignorant bafooon”.

            I know they are angry at not being able to refute the science we show them, but there’s no excuse for their behavior. Perhaps they are trolling just to get us to make one such comment, so there is hollow justification to ban us.

          • RealOldOne2

            Have you noticed that ROO2 has been posting “Sorry for your loss, RIP, RealOldOne2” to me all day?

          • Sparafucile

            No. His idiocy is blocked from my feed :-)

      • RealOldOne2

        “So we’re causing Arctic temperature to rocket upwards about 250 times faster than natural”
        That’s baseless, evidence-free nonsense. You’ve given no evidence whatsoever that humans are causing the Arctic warming (excepting for smearing the UHI exaggerated warming 1200km over the Arctic where there are no thermometers, that is). Your hokey-stick is pseudoscience, as it’s been debunked many times by McIntyre & McKittrick as statistical rubbish, https://climateaudit.org/2005/04/08/mckitrick-what-the-hockey-stick-debate-is-about/ .

        The recent Arctic warming is no greater than the natural Arctic warming of the early 20th century.

        “The huge warming in the Arctic which started in the 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the 20th century.” – Bengtsson(2004) ‘The Early 20th century warming in the Arctic…’

        250 times faster? – debunked.

        Your CO2 hypothesis has failed the real world empirical test.
        ~500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 21st century and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere to increase 0.4C like your faulty, flawed climate models predicted. The slight increase during the 21st century is only due to the natural 2015/2016 El Nino. Prior to that El Nino, the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere had decreased for 15 years. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000.3/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2000.3/to:2015.3/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.3/offset:-375/scale:0.04/to:2015.3/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.3/offset:-375/scale:0.04/trend/to:2015.3 Your CO2 hypothesis is falsified.

        ~500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 21st century and it hasn’t caused any increase in DownWellingIR like your faulty, flawed, falsified, failed climate models predicted. DWIR has actually decreased: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/dwlwir.png?w=640&h=252 Your CO2 hypothesis is falsified.

        ~500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 21st century and it hasn’t caused the LongWaveIR from the surface to decrease like your flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models predicted. LWIR from the surface has actually increased: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/ceres-net-sfc-lw-absolutt1.png?w=640&h=252 Your CO2 hypothesis is falsified.

        • Icarus62

          “We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence.”

          doi:10.1038/ngeo338

          http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/full/ngeo338.html

          • RealOldOne2

            Yes, just like I said, your claim “So we’re causing Arctic temperature to rocket upwards about 250 times faster than natural” is baseless, empirical evidence free nonsense.

            Sorry, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence in Gillett(2008) showing that humans are the cause of polar warming. None whatsoever.

            Gillett(2008)’s “findings” are fatally flawed because they use climate models to attribute warming to humans. You can’t properly do that because climate models can’t reproduce natural climate variability. This is the same flawed methodology that the IPCC uses.

            And Gillett makes no mention of “250 times faster than normal”. That’s your fabrication based on comparing a 5000yr change to a 5 year change. The present Arctic warming is no different than the natural Arctic warming of the early 1900s:

            “The huge warming in the Arctic which started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century.” – Bengtsson(2004)

          • Sparafucile

            Apparently you cannot tell a scientific conclusion from a speculative (and therefore shaky) deduction. Your quote is the latter.

        • Wallace Frantz

          RealOldOne2; you actually wrote, > (“The recent Arctic warming is no greater than the natural Arctic warming of the early 20th century.”).

          How on Earth can you post such outlandish lies and believe anyone who is honest and intelligent would believe you?

          Was the Arctic Ocean’s perennial ice melted away in the early 20th century? No. It is now however and that began in 2004.

          Was the Gulf Stream flowing into the Arctic Ocean in the early 20th century? No, it is now though and that is due to a greatly reduced flow of the Gulf Stream due to many dried rivers in the Amazon Region because of global warming and the loss of mountain glaciers in South America.

          Were large cargo ships able to cross the Arctic’s NW Passage in the early 20th century? No, they are now though in a few days of time several months of the year.

          At the current rate of Arctic Ocean ice loss the Arctic Ocean will be ice free year round by 2024 or 5. That will cause global catastrophic climate and local weather disasters.

          Stop lying RealOldOne2.

          • RealOldOne2

            Settle down Wally before you have a stroke. I’m so sorry you deny science. But most members of your climate cult are science deniers.

            Everything happening climate related in the past century is well within the bounds of natural variability that has happened previously on Earth.

            There is no empirical evidence that humans are the primary cause of anything happening climate related. The null climate hypothesis of natural climate variability as the primary cause of climate change has never been empirically falsified. Your new alternative CO2 hypothesis has never been empirically validated, in fact as I showed in my previous comment, the fundamental premise has been shown to be wrong by the satellite data.

            Rather than rant and rave and call me a liar, learn some science. Then come back.

          • Wallace Frantz

            RealOldOne, I do not get excited when reading your BS or replying to your lies…

            All that disjointed and dishonest crap you just posted and the fact remains what is now happening in the Arctic never occurred in the early 20th century as you so lied it had. Stuff it.

          • RealOldOne2

            “All that disjointed and dishonest crap you just posted and the fact remains what is now happening ini the Arctic never occurred in the early 20th century as you so lied it had. Stuff it.”
            Wally, Wally, take a chill pill dude. Stop acting like a 10 year old throwing a tantrum, unless you are a 10 year old throwing a tantrum, then it’s OK.

            I told no lies. I quoted from peer reviewed science, Bengtsson et.al.,(2007). His peer reviewed paper is who stated “During the peak period 1930-1940, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°-90°N amounted to some 1.7°C.”

            So don’t be so dishonest to call me a liar. Take it up with Lennart Bengtsson, Vladimir Semenov and Ola M Johannessen who authored ‘The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic …’.

            I can tell that it really upset you that I posted science that showed your climate belief system is wrong because of your infantile behavior.
            You proved that you can’t refute any of the accurate scientific facts that I presented which shows the fundamental premise of your CO2 climate alarmism religion are wrong, ie. more CO2 does not cause more DWIR and less LWIR and increasing atmospheric temperature. It’s reality. Deal with it.

      • Sparafucile

        Fake Science. Nice try, propagandist rube.

    • The1TruthSpeaker

      You still haven’t answered the question

  • A.Alexander

    Seing what you wish to see in a normal natural chaos.

  • Mike Richardson

    Something really crazy seems to be going on in the comment threads for this article, too. Aside from the usual political propaganda from the usual sources, we’ve got numerous irrelevant, supposedly humorous GIFs, and more “Happy Thanksgivings” than you can shake a drumstick at. Now I love the season as much as anyone else, but is it really too much to maintain a discussion relevant to the topic of the warming Arctic ocean and the feedback mechanisms affecting it and the surrounding landmasses? We’re dumping a lot of excess heat into the atmosphere, and increasingly the oceans, with both predictable and unpredictable effects. I’d be thankful for more information on what the consequences are for me and my family (and hopefully, and future descendants), and how we might be able to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Hopefully, that isn’t too much to ask.

    • RealOldOne2

      “We’re dumping a lot of excess heat into the atmosphere, and increasingly the oceans”
      Can you explain what “excess heat” are we dumping into the atmosphere?
      Same question for the oceans.

      • Mike Richardson

        Excess heat that would be radiated back into space at infrared wavelengths, were it not blocked by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane, and CFCs. We generated the gases which caused this trapping phenomenon, and thus are dumping into the atmosphere and the ocean excess heat which would otherwise escape into space.

        • RealOldOne2

          OK, thanks. I thought that you meant ‘trapped heat’ from CO2/ghgs but wanted to be sure.

          The problem is that CO2/ghgs haven’t ‘trapped’ any “excess heat” in the atmosphere, as the temperature of the atmosphere during the 21st century hasn’t increased, until the recent 2015/2016 natural El Nino, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c830c2621cbfb339228896786b214cf2af040b44f81c27dc15a89f572ba5e1b.png . During those first 15 years of the 21st century humans added almost 500 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is almost 1/3 of all the human CO2 ever produced, and yet it caused no increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. The only “excess heat”, if you want to call it that, during the 21st century has been from the natural stored solar energy which was released into the atmosphere by the 2015/2016 El Nino.

          And there is no scientific basis for your claim that any “excess heat” was “dumped” into the ocean, since 1) there was no increase in temperature of the atmosphere during the 21st century, and 2) there is no physical mechanism for direct transfer of heat from the cold atmosphere into the warmer surface of the oceans. Thermodynamics prevents any transfer of heat from the colder atmosphere into the warmer surface of the ocean. Ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs in the atmosphere, because solar radiation is higher energy and penetrates up to 200m deep into the ocean, In addition to the 15μm ‘backradiation’ from the cold atmosphere not being able to transfer heat into the ocean because of thermodynamics, that 15μm radiation only penetrates a few microns deep, so its impact on the ocean is negligible compared to solar radiation.

          Also the empirical data from satellites shows that LWIR from the surface has not been ‘trapped’ or reduced as your CO2 hypothesis says should happen when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase. LWIR from the surface has increased: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/ceres-net-sfc-lw-absolutt1.png?w=640&h=252

          Also the empirical data from satellites shows that DWIR has not increased as your CO2 hypothesis says should happen when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase. DWIR has decreased: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/dwlwir.png?w=640&h=252

          Hope that helps you understand why you are wrong in your claim of “excess heat” due to humans.

          • Mike Richardson

            Unfortunately, I’m not wrong. As demonstrated many times by NASA and NOAA dated cited throughout this blog’s articles, we’ve had several decades of increasing atmospheric temperatures, with record high temperatures from year to year and month to month. The amount of direct transference from atmosphere to ocean may be debatable, but higher air temperatures do contribute to melting surface ice and warming of shallower bodies of water. The ocean is warming, as well as becoming more acidic from the extra CO2, which is proving harmful to a variety of organisms in the sea which depend on calcium deposition for their well-being, such as coral. We’re warming, both by air and sea, and all other factors have been excluded, leaving us as the responsible party here.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Unfortunately, I’m not wrong.”
            Unfortunately, you are wrong. You didn’t refute a single bit of the science that I presented that showed you were wrong. You are only making baseless, evidence-free claims.

            You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century.
            But there are several peer reviewed papers that empirically show that there was ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century warming than there was increase in CO2 forcing. Empirical evidence that the late 20th century warming was natural, just like every other warming in the history of the planet.

            “The ocean is warming”
            Some oceans are warming, others such as the North Atlantic is cooling. http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20NorthAtlanticOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
            So WattsUpWithThat? In the last ~decade the North Atlantic has lost almost half of all the OHC increase in the previous ~3 decades. Does CO2 not work over the North Atlantic? Did the “it’s just physics” change? Only over some ocean basins?
            No, it’s natural climate variability/cycles. CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming as shown by the real world test were humans have added 600 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere during the last ~19 years and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. The only increase has been due to the natural El Nino.

            “as well as becoming more acidic from the extra CO2”
            No, it’s just natural variability. Ocean pH was just as low during the early and mid 1900s when CO2 levels were much lower than today.

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/mwacompilationofglobalocean_phjan82014.jpg

            “which is proving harmful to a variety of organisms in the sea which depend on calcium deposition for their well-being, such as coral.”
            You are just reciting climate alarmist talking points. Peer reviewed science shows that the present pH is not unusual and that corals are adaptable to greater changes that we are seeing today:

            “The dominant feature of the δ¹¹B is a clear interdecadal oscillation of pH … synchronous with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO)(27), the Pacific-wide equivalent of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) … our results suggest that the corals at Flinders Reef have experienced a relatively wide range in pH (~0.3 pH units) over the past ~300 years. As a result, these corals have also experienced equivalent changes in the aragonite saturation state (Ωarag), one of the main physicochemical controllers of coral calcification. Changes in Ωarag have been derived from the Flinders pH record (Fig. 2D), with Ωarag varying from ~3 to 4.5, assuming constant alkalinity (10,24). This encompasses the lower and upper limits of Ωarag within which corals can survive (37). Despite such marked changes, skeletal extension and calcification rates for the Flinders Reef coral (Fig. 2E) fall within the normal range for Porites (38) and are not correlated with Ωarag or pH. Therefore, the Porites coral at Flinders Reef seems well adapted to relatively large fluctuations in seawater pH and Ωarag. – Pelejero(2005) ‘Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability of Coral Reef pH’

            “and all other factors have been excluded, leaving us as the responsible party here.”
            Wrong, all other factors have not been excluded. As I stated above, the increase in natural forcing of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was ~10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing. Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013) & McLean(2014) empirically showed that there was in increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface of 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late20th century warming. CO2 forcing during that timeframe only increased ~0.5W/m².
            Your “ruled out” claims were all based on flawed, faulty climate models which can’t project future global temperature at even the 2% confidence level, “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013)
            Plus the models can’t properly be used to separate anthropogenic from natural causation because they are incapable of accurately representing natural climate change.

            You have yet to show any empirical evidence for human causation of climate change. It’s based on projections from flawed, faulty climate models.

          • OWilson

            More likely based on what he has heard from his politicians, and his lying, cheating, biased and wrong Main Stream Media.

            He is not alone, unfortunately!

            He argued just as vehemently that there could never be a President Trump!

            His posts are full of certainties, not science.

            “WE HAVE THE HIGH GROUND”, and “I’M NOT WRONG”, and unsupported declarative statements like “We’re warming and ALL OTHER FACTORS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED”.

            He is not worth your time, but like with me, it’s good to get his nonsense on record!

            When he starts accusing you of encouraging ‘THE RISE OF FASCISM”, that’s the time to just say:

            Adios!

          • RealOldOne2

            I don’t expect to convert the climate alarmist believers, but sane rational people read these articles, so I respectfully engage them to:
            1) expose that the climate alarmists’ beliefs are not supported by hard, empirical science,
            2) expose readers to hard empirical science that refutes the climate alarmism which they won’t see in the groupthink controlled press, and
            3) show that the climate alarmists are unable to face the reality that they are wrong, as they stubbornly cling to any mistakes they make, which is the exact same behavior of members of doomsday cults.

            This is why eminent scientists are recognizing that the current climate alarmist movement is no longer science. It has become a religion, a belief system. Here is evidence to support my statement:

            “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

            “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48 )

            “global warming has become a religion” – Nobel Laureate PhD physicist Ivar Giaever, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/

            “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.

          • OWilson

            Good stuff!

            Keep up the good work.

            When I started this stuff, at the height of the doomsday global warming scenarios (I only go to their own sites, NYT, WP, Guardian, The Hill) I was routinely demonized and ridiculed.

            Things change, now they are starting to realize it takes more than “shaming” and ad hominem attacks and appeals to the phony “hockey stick”, Al Gore, phony “Tipping Points” and “97%”consensus”. to overcome a growing skepticism in the public at large.

            With some I debate the science (from established sources) to the extent I could learn something new, but it is always the same old, same old appeal to authority. “Settled Science”

            Others who I consider no more than trolls, I like to engage to make them, work a little harder, look a little sillier :)

            They find I can be just as nasty as they are if provoked, then they go from aggressive to whining.

            The passive/aggresiveness is always just one small scratch below the surface.

            Believers start out with smiles and flowers, but if you don’t buy what they are selling, they will take no prisoners.

            It’s become a hobby of sorts!

          • Bart_R

            Enough with the virtue signalling already.

          • RealOldOne2

            I try not to be nasty, but I’m not above ridiculing the ridiculous.

            One of the things they do which exposes them in the worst light is stubbornly refusing to admit to a single mistake, even when they have made a totally absurd false statement. Bart_R who just made a vacuous reply to you is a good example of that. Some time ago he made the silly false claim:

            Bart_R: “CO2 tops out the ‘plant food’ category at about 300ppmv”

            Even after showing him results of thousands of experimental tests which were documented in hundreds of peer reviewed papers for hundreds of different plants, ( http://co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php , pick a plant from any letter of the alphabet) that showed that CO2 acted as a fertilizer/plant food to levels of 700+ ppm, Bart refuses to admit that he is wrong. This makes it so obvious to other people the irrational, incoherent, reality-denying cult-like behavior of true believers in their global warming religion.

            And you are correct that when they see that they can’t sell you their bill of goods, they become very nasty and dishonest. My continued exposure of one such believer, ROO2, has become my serial impersonator, creating usernames such as Real0ld0ne2 (numeral 0 instead of letter O), RealOldOne3, RealOldOne2 (yes, my exact same username, but with only a few dozen comments instead of my 19,000) and his present ROO2, which is what I used as a nickname and others called me for short. When it occurred more than once, I began documenting it with screen captures. His dishonest serial impersonation is documented here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3011348524

            This is a perfect example of noble cause corruption, or anything goes, dishonest or not, because they delusionally believe that they are “saving the planet”.

            Keep up the good work.

          • OWilson

            I’ve been around long enough to know the difference between an honest belief in a good outcome, and cynical political manipulation and propaganda.

            There is serious money and serious left wing politics at the root of this AGW stuff.

            Otherwise it would not sink to the level of fraud, dishonesty, impersonation you mention above.

            There wouldn’t be this vitriol, even threats and warnings, to this old semi retired scientifically curious gentleman, unless there was something else going on.

            It goes much, much deeper. It is about radical politics, not science.

          • Mike Richardson

            Everything’s politics with you Wilson, which isn’t a very healthy way to view the world. As for referring to anyone else as a political radical, you really, really need to do some objective self examination. The irony is funny, but it’s actually quite sad that you don’t see how far to the right you’ve gone, to the exclusion of any set of data you believe doesn’t support your own rather extreme political ideology.

          • OWilson

            What “extreme” political ideology?

            You mean like your pathetic choice for President who sold out to the Queen of corruption, and who wanted to bring me and all “climate deniers to justice” for questioning his dogma?

            This is getting too silly :)

            Adios (for now) amigo!

          • Mike Richardson

            Adios! Glad to see you go. :)

          • RealOldOne2

            “Glad to see you go. :)”
            I’ll bet you are, since he exposed your false belief in your climate alarmism, just as I did.

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL… Sure ya did. At least you put up some pretty graphs from “Wood for Trees.” Ol’Wilson just went on another one of his political rants, exposing nothing but himself (ewww, that’s a rather disturbing mental image, now). So why is it that the vast majority of scientists disagree with your assertions and your graphs? Are they all “alarmists,” political operatives, or involved in some vast conspiracy to actually decrease pollution? I’m rather curious about that.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Sure ya did”
            Glad that you admit it.
            And don’t forget the graph of North Atlantic OHC , which shows that in the last decade it is has lost 1/2 of the heat it gained in the previous 3 decades. You never did explain how the “physics of CO2” decided to stop working over the North Atlantic???

            And don’t forget the graph of NOAA ocean pH data , which shows that present pH levels are about the same as they were a century ago. WattsUpWithThat?

            “So why is it that the vast majority of scientists disagree with your assertions and your graphs.”
            There is no empirical evidence that they do.
            Show me your evidence that the vast majority of scientists disagree with my two graphs. You can’t.
            And 31,000+ scientists who agree with my understanding of climate change are found here: http://www.petitionproject.org/
            Your “97% consensus” was based on only 76!

            “Are they all “alarmists,” political operatives, or involved in some vast conspiracy”
            LOL. You climate crazies really have a fixation on conspiracy ideation don’t you! Hilarious.
            The answer to your question is primarily that their livelihoods depend on perpetuating the scam/hoax/fraud/lie of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2.

            “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

            And yes, it is a scam, as 29% of AMS meteorologists surveyed agreed.

            And don’t forget that the CERES satellite data which I showed you which shows that your CO2 hypothesis is backwards, since DWIR has actually decreased while CO2 increased.
            I’m rather curious about that. Why haven’t you addressed that?

            And don’t forget that the CERES satellite data which I showed you which shows that your CO2 hypothesis is backwards, since LWIR has actually increased while CO2 increased.
            I’m rather curious about that. Why haven’t you addressed that?

            You can’t address any of the hard empirical science that shows your CO2 climate alarmist beliefs are wrong. You are just a believer, which is religion, not science.

          • ROO2

            Also the empirical data from satellites shows that DWIR has not increased as your CO2 hypothesis says should happen when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase. DWIR has decreased:

            Given that your “scientific” [used in the most loose sense] position is that there is no DWIR as that would be an energy flux from the atmosphere to the surface that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I find this somewhat the most amazing contradictory bollox from the anals of pseudoscience.

            that 15μm radiation only penetrates a few microns deep, so its impact on the ocean is negligible compared to solar radiation.

            So now backradiation energy is absorbed by the ocean and does have an effect on it too.

            My how the wheel of pseudoscientific bollox changes with every post from you to a different person.

            Such a fraud. Poor, poor RealOdlOne2.

          • evenminded

            Just found out that there is a law governing the likes of RealOldOne2 and BBQman. It’s Brandolini’s Law.

            P.S. You’re a bastich for changing your name to ROO2. Now I have to type out that idiot’s name every time I want to mention him. ; )

  • Wallace Frantz

    What is now happening in the Arctic may seem to be “crazy” but it should be fully expected for any who have been closely following what has been occurring in the Arctic since about 2006.

    Drs. Igor Semiletov and his wife Dr. Natalia Shakova, Russian scientists and professors at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks warned all this was going to happen within a decade or less if no action was taken to greatly reduce human’s emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 from burning coal in electrical power plants all around the world.

    The two scientists have been studying methane gas in the Arctic Region for over 20 years and have led teams of scientists every year on scientific studies of that subject.

    They feared that a warming Arctic would allow the Arctic permafrost to thaw or melt and allow vast amounts of the very potent greenhouse gas CH4, methane gas, to release into the atmosphere.

    They feared correctly… In 2009 they discovered that the Arctic Ocean’s sub sea permafrost floor was perforated and great amount of methane was releasing, they discovered over a hundred plumes of rising methane gas which were over half a mile in diameter in one area of the Ocean. The East Siberian Shelf Area.

    Every year sicne then that has become worse and now vast amounts of methane is escaping from the permafrost, both on the sea floor and on land.

    The methne that releases into th eArctic’s atmosphere stay there for abut a year before it has finally mixed and moved globally where it is then not as high a percentage of greenhouse gases globally… However it is high in the Arctic Region and that is one major reason for the now incredibly warming Arctic Region.

    It isn’t “crazy”… What truly is is crazy is the fact most scientists in the world and world leaders ignored and or DENIED the scientific findings of over 400 scientists and nothing has been done to prevent what is now happening and that will become worse every year from now on unless some miracle occurs.

    The loss of the Arctic’s perennial ice may be the most dangerous single thing that will effect all life on the planet to have occurred since the last mass extinction of life near 55 million years ago. Oh yes: the Arctic’s perennial ice is now gone with the heat.

    The GW Deniers here loading the thread with misinformation about the issue are one of the primary reasons world leaders have failed to act…

    The professional hired GW Deniers have won their agenda but all life loses.

    • BigWaveDave

      The GW Deniers here, such as BBQMan and David Russell and otheres loading the thread with misinformation about the issue are one of the primary reasons world leaders have failed to act… Perhaps the greatest reason?

      The professional hired GW Deniers have won their flawed and corrupt agenda but all life loses.

      What a load of nonsense.

      The only professionals with an agenda are the charlatans and activists promoting the greenhouse gas BS.

      There is nothing particularly unusual or alarming about the weather in the Arctic or elsewhere, and there is no theory of how it is physically possible for trace amounts of well mixed non-condensing gases to have a measurable effect on tropospheric or surface temperatures.

      • Wallace Frantz

        The professional deniers I speak of are paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread the disinformation about AGW; that is a well established fact

        You replied to that comment about professional GW Deniers and ignore the rest of what I posted and accuse me of posting a load of nonsense….. Are you one of Exxon’s hired liars?

        • BBQman

          Ha ha, prove your outlandish claims, what nonsense!

          • RealOldOne2

            Can you believe Wally’s unhinged behavior?

          • BBQman

            It’s very unbecoming, Tom should have a chat with him about his tread conduct, it becomes all but impossible to advance the discussion about the primary climate drivers with Wally’s incoherent babbling!

          • Bart_R

            I’ve noticed you have this tendency to suck up to those in perceived positions of authority or power, flattering and simpering, while treating others who disagree with you like trash, usually behind their backs.

            How’s that working out for you in life?

          • BBQman

            My profile is always open, so it is impossible to talk about you behind your back, and if you would ever exhibit any simple kind empathic type human emotions, like happiness, joy or humor, plus a touch of interest, that just maybe there is more to climate change then CO2, who knows?

            If you want my respect, earn it.

            It is possible, that I may respect you one day, if you stop being so one dimensional as related to climate drivers and environmental quantification.

          • Bart_R

            Wow. You imagine anyone in the world cares about your respect?

            Sad.

            Straw man on your own time.

            Pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Why would anyone respect someone who bleats about staying on topic and then posts multiple Thanksgiving messages to their vote bot accounts?

            LOL

          • BBQman

            You should get out more and enjoy life, find your purpose, remember, when you leave this earth, the only things you can take with you are your memories, you should make them Pleasant ones.

            The topic is my post at the top of the thread, where I debunked the notion that something crazy was happening at the Arctic.

            You, nor anyone else have been able to successfully rebutt it.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Wrong again, BBW.

            The topic is “Something really crazy is happening in the Arctic”

            Nobody cares what you post other than to point out your stupidity and wholly misplaced sense of adequacy.

          • ROO2

            My profile is always open

            Rather like your sphincter, the consequences of which are the same.

          • evenminded
          • ROO2

            Oh my, is that you? Good grief, it is you!

            How is your tin foil hat these days? You know, the one that reflects no energy whatsoever.

            Last time we met you walked away without returning before you could explain how laser rangefinding and radar worked without bi-directional energy transfer. Then there was basic reflection of light, the CMB, sentient and psychic matter that at the infancy of the Universe would emit no energy to anything that might be warmer when it had formed billions of years in the future.

            More idiocy please!

          • RealOldOne2

            “Oh my, is that you?”
            Yes it’s me, the genuine RealOldOne2, the knowledgeable scientist you envied so much that you began serially impersonating me hoping some of my intelligence would rub off on you. Sadly for you it hasn’t.

            “Last time we met you walked away..”
            Your memory fails you Scooter Dana, aka Dan, aka Real0ld0ne2, aka RealOldOne3, aka RealOldOne2. Last time you slunk away with your tail between your legs because I exposed your dishonest serial impersonation of me : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3011348524

          • ROO2

            “Last time we met you walked away without returning before you could explain how laser rangefinding and radar worked without bi-directional energy transfer. Then there was basic reflection of light, the CMB, sentient and psychic matter that at the infancy of the Universe would emit no energy to anything that might be warmer when it had formed billions of years in the future.”

            I see you still cannot explain the world around you. Shame.

            Poor scientifically illiterate RealOldOne2.

          • RealOldOne2

            My poor pathetic dishonest serial impersonating troll, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3011348524 , the only thing you are good at is projection, obfuscation and lying.

            You suck at science because:
            – you make ignorant claims like the cold atmosphere transfers more heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does, but you can’t experimentally demonstrate it so you are proven wrong.
            – you can’t refute the thermodynamics/heat transfer example that shows your silly reverse/anti-thermodynamics claim violates the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/#comment-3035696054

          • ROO2

            “Last time we met you walked away without returning before you could explain how laser rangefinding and radar worked without bi-directional energy transfer. Then there was basic reflection of light, the CMB, sentient and psychic matter that at the infancy of the Universe would emit no energy to anything that might be warmer when it had formed billions of years in the future.”

            Still unable to describe the world according to your pseudoscience? You claimed to have a degree is some scientific topic? Was it some social science perhaps?

            You suck at science because:
            – you make ignorant claims like the cold atmosphere transfers more heat to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does

            Given that you cannot even grasp what I have stated or even basic science that your own internet links contradict, that your own cited papers contradict, and that even the publishing contrarian climate scientists contradict, that explains your niche position nicely.

            “A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.

            We shall now introduce the further simplifying assumption that the
            physical and chemical condition of the emitting substance depends on but a single variable, namely, on its absolute temperature T. A necessary consequence of this is that the coefficient of emission depends, apart from the frequency ν and the nature of the medium, only on the temperature T.”

            Your paper rebutting Planck is still awaited, it’s been well over a year now. Have the publishers and reviewers found it difficult, as everyone with a brain has, getting past your “LOL @ your…” grasp of English, coupled with your fairy and unicorn scientific concepts?

            Poor, poor, poor intellect RealOldOne2. 😉

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Why?
            You steadfastly refuse to prove yours.

          • BBQman

            I have explained the mechanics and actual climate drivers to you Anaussieinswitzerland and your Romper room friends many times now, and as a free service as well, I have never asked for or receive a fee for my hard work.

            We at Catastrophic Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor have exposed many of the often ignored facts and sloppy data collection methods by those who believe the theory of CO2 as a climate driver at atmospheric levels above 345 ppm.
            CO2 lags temperature changes for the most part, not the other way around.

            Most people do not know that 80% of the 1,800 individual CO2 and/or temperature sensors are in the Northern Hemisphere, which means only 20% are in the Southern Hemisphere. We don’t have enough sensors or an equal enough grid spacing of said sensors to even guess what our Global average temperatures are today, much less what they were in 1880.

            Even today, man does not have the ability to know what our Global temperatures or CO2 levels are, they settled science people are lying through their teeth!

            Next, they say the earth has been warming up since 1880 by almost 1 degree Celsius per century, which is completely normal as we had just exited the 600 year long Little Ice Age that had kept the earth at an estimated -2.6 degrees Celsius below what it is today.

            Our mission at the BBQman “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor” primary data climate science center, which is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, established to bring forth truth and common sense as related to our true climate drivers which are solar electromagnetic forces and their effect on our outer liquid core.

            Also it is our mission to expose the many data collection flaws connected to the laughable unproven theory of man made CO2 as a climate driver after 345 ppm, if you wish to donate to the organization, please make your check payable to “C A S H” for short and mail to PO Box……with your help we can have a better future!
            We are also hiring for new positions at this moment!

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “I have explained the mechanics and actual climate drivers to you Anaussieinswitzerland”

            Liar!

          • BBQman

            Your inability to comprehend and connect the dots is not my problem.

          • T. Gillespie Quinn

            The information that you share is valuable and above all truthful. Thank you BBQman.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “above all truthful”

            LOL
            So what is it about BBQ’s posts that you think is truthful?

            Do you believe, like him, that the Earth is warming due to magnetic forces?
            How does that work?
            What do you think his background is that makees him more of an authority than every national scientific institution in the world?
            Why do you think that every single university is not vying for his services?
            Why do you think that every government in the world regardless of political persuasion believes that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change?

            Why do you let him use your account for his vote bot?

          • ROO2

            *** tumbleweed ***

          • BBQman

            Thank you!

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            Do you really believe anyone believes you?

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Oh, his vote bot accounts are convinced he is the fount of all knowledge.

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            LOL

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            You still haven’t answered the question.

        • BigWaveDave

          The professional deniers I speak of are paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread the disinformation about AGW; that is a well established fact

          How was this supposed fact established?

          In your load of nonsense you suggest that the Arctic Ocean has a “sub sea permafrost floor” Who is stupid enough to think there could be such a thing at sea floor pressure?

          You say:

          The loss of the Arctic’s perennial ice may be the most dangerous single thing that will effect all life on the planet to have occurred since the last mass extinction of life near 55 million years ago.

          Oh yes: the Arctic’s perennial ice is now gone with the heat.

          but fail to offer any proof that there has not been less ice in the past, or any theory of how there is any relationship to human activity.

          You falsely assert that:

          The GW Deniers here, such as BBQMan and David Russell and otheres loading the thread with misinformation about the issue are one of the primary reasons world leaders have failed to act… Perhaps the greatest reason?

          and ignore the possibility that there might be a few world leaders with enough sense to see how stupid your alarmist assertions really are.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You are really uninformed BigWaveDave… Hard ot believe.

            It as been known for many years now that Exxon and other fossil fuel giants have paid out millions of dollars to the same public relations firms that hired writers to lie about cigarette smoking does not cause medical problems… Exxon for one has admitted it and said they would cease it… They didn’t however and that has been proven. The fossil fuel industry hires writes t lie about the AGW issue.

            Next…. LMAOFF….. The Arctic Ocean’s floor is deep frozen permafrost and loaded with trillions of tons of methane hydrates and CO2. It is thawing and the methane is releasing into the atmosphere. .
            http://thinkglobalgreen.org/METHANE.html

            http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Methane-Arctic-Warming16dec04.htm

            http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2015/01/2015-nasa-finds-amazing-amounts-of.html

            Why are you posting comments here when you don’t have a clue about the issue. You are making a fool of yourself.

          • RealOldOne2

            “It is thawing and the methane is releasing into the atmosphere”
            Yes, and it is natural, caused by natural geothermal heating from below and natural heating from the naturally warmed oceans from solar radiation. And it Portnov said that it began thawing 12,000 years ago. How much human CO2 was released into the atmosphere 12,00 years ago Wallace?
            Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t cause “perforation” of the ocean floor.

            Why are you posting comments here when you don’t have a clue about the issue. You are making a fool of yourself.”
            You are projecting Wally.

            I’m still waiting for you to explain the physical mechanism of how “AGW has caused the ocean waters around the world to warm”.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Here’s another one for your education if you are still confused BigWaveDave…. The Arctic Ocean floor is thick permafrost.

            https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-12/c-cf-mil122214.php

            A quote from the article > quote > (“The thawing of permafrost on the ocean floor is an ongoing process, likely to be exaggerated by the global warming of the world oceans.” says PhD Alexey Portnov at Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment (CAGE) at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway.”)… < Unquote.

    • RealOldOne2

      “they discovered that the Arctic Ocean’s sub sea permafrost floor was perforated and great amount of methane was releasing”
      Wallace, please explain the physical mechanism of how CO2 in the atmosphere causes perforation of the ocean floor.
      Hint: There is none, it’s natural. Human CO2 can no more cause perforations in the ocean floor than it can cause the recent ocean warming.
      You are just making non-scientific alarmist scare statements.

      “The GW Deniers here loading the thread with misinformation”
      Actually you are the one loading the thread with misinformation. You haven’t shown that a single thing that I have posted is “misinformation”, but I have been able to show that you have posted misinformation, such as your claim that anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere has caused the recent ocean warming. I politely asked you to explain how anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere causes the oceans to warm, and you refused because you couldn’t, and just made the baseless evidence-free allegation “you tell lies about it”.

      • ROO2

        but I have been able to show that you have posted misinformation, such as your claim that anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere has caused the recent ocean warming.

        Oh my. All this from the person that thinks a photon has a temperature and that all matter in the Universe is sentient.

        This is marvelous.

        Don’t tell me Nature rejected your paper! Oh no! 😉

        Let’s try some science instead:

        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2991.html

  • babyangel

    I CANT see myself driving a Hybrid car and sing an electric lawnmower to be ” environmentaly friendy”

    • Bart_R

      Consider a Tesla. Depending how much you drive, with some wind farms in Texas producing electricity for under 2.5 cents/kWh compared to gas prices of $1.80/gal, you could be saving a lot of money in a much safer vehicle that costs less to maintain or repair, plus Tesla jobs are American jobs, and fossil jobs are like 15% American.

      Also, I agree about lawnmowers. While there are very nice push mowers for people with physical challenges, I prefer a scythe or sickle. There’s something elementally satisfying about traditional mowing.

      • babyangel

        thanks for the suggestion Bartholomew,
        Tesla looks like a nice car i was like WOW when i saw the power output from it ! the tesla model s was really really nice even tho its a 4 door car .
        But those hybrid / electric cars dont seem very long lasting since the ones on the road are sorta like prototypes that havnt been manufactored well ? like i doubt it if they can get over 100k miles on the road. my mustang that has a v8 gets like -20mpg the old old small truck i drive is just as bad even tho it has a tiny 4 cyl the motor on it seems to be screaming if it drives 70mph or faster! but ya even tho theyre both standard it doesnt seem to help much with mpg
        lol a sickle 😛 , hay do you know how they mow in some asian prisons? they get alot alot of inmates out there on the prison lawn and they break grass with their hand like in half ( im not joking with that either !)

        • Bart_R

          It’s just BART_R; there’s no personal name behind it. :)

          And yes, Tesla makes a few different cars that are WOW.

          If you’re in a hybrid that gets less distance between fill-ups than a V8 Mustang, someone has done something very wrong. Current range on a Tesla is over 300 miles, up 50% from 2012, and better than any V8 Mustang I’ve seen go between fill ups.

          As for long lasting?

          Tesla resale value is rock solid, and mechanically they’re the most sound, well-built production cars in America today so far as I can see. In part, I credit that with them being actually built in America, not from a bunch of imported chunks slapped together to meet the minimal ‘American Made’ label.

          My personal knowledge of asian prison life is extremely limited. 😉

          You can mow grass by bunching and breaking; I’ve done that myself from time to time, but the rhythm of the scythe is almost like a meditation; monks used to chant prayers to keep their scythe rhythm in the fields.

          So.. what about my questions?

          I’m sincerely interested in your views about the actual topic our host posted on the Arctic. You seem to be saying you want to reason by consequences, and your dislike of (ugh) hybrids colors your views on the harm fossil does to the Arctic?

          Is that what you mean?

      • babyangel

        mmm i’d rather get a volkswagen instead of a hybrid car or electric car since theres alot of volkswagens that have very very efficient 4 cylinder diesel motors ! those can get 40+mpg! they seem to last forever too since ive seen some 1/4 ton trucks with diesel motors for sale . they seem to have an extremly good resell value $ like i see some of those trucks that are 30+ years old for sale for over $4k USD !

        • Bart_R

          I’ve always distrusted VW’s efficiency claims, and wasn’t surprised when their cheating on the tests was revealed. They’ve fallen a long, long way in my respect since the 1960’s.

          There are some great diesel vehicles out there; you know you can make your own diesel cheaply by pyrolysis?

          It’s not something a person can do without the sort of land and access to woody waste of a farm, say, but if you know a farmer, it’s hardly more complicated than running a still. Pretty much free diesel, not depending on anyone but your local farmer and the parts of crops they normally plow into the soil to rot into methane.

          And as a plus, the farmer gets biochar out of the deal, soil amender that helps protect from drought and keep soil alive in heat waves.

        • justaguy2727

          I made you a mod on the Looney Bin

          https://disqus.com/home/channel/jagslooneybin/

          Please don’t ban anyone or delete discussions☺

        • ROO2

          i’d rather get a volkswagen instead of a hybrid car or electric car

          VW produce both hybrid and fully electric cars. I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say.

          volkswagens that have very very efficient 4 cylinder diesel motors ! those can get 40+mpg! they seem to last forever too

          Good luck with that, you might be lucky in the short term. Diesel is already being outlawed in some large cities owing to the issues with particulates and NOx. The technology to clean them up does not work at the present time, is growing ever more costly for consumers to maintain, and even then the emissions are an ongoing problem.

          • Smooth to Operate

            Every trucker in America drives a diesel powered truck.

            Between the lobbyists and the shear enormity of the issue. It’d be a kin to deporting 10 million people. That’s just my opinion.

          • ROO2

            Every trucker in America drives a diesel powered truck.

            Interesting, if the economics of running a gas/electric hybrid are as Nikola motors claim, then there will be a very rapid shift away from using diesel.

            https://nikolamotor.com/

          • Smooth to Operate

            Yeah…Like Obamas program (cash for clunkers) to swap out old vehicles for new. I was hoping to get a great deal on a used car. They crushed all of them of course.

            The incentives to change come from the tax payers.

            You are correct. In any business, the bottom line is all they see. Companies like Apple and Google could care less if they lose money. Their #1 priority is ‘ideas’…

  • Robert

    As one reads through this thread, consider this:

    C.R.A.A.P. Test
    Currency:
    the timeliness of the information
    When was the information published or posted?
    Has the information been revised or updated?
    Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
    Are the links functional?
    Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
    Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
    Who is the intended audience?
    Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
    Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
    Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
    Authority: the source of the information
    Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
    Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
    What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
    What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
    Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
    Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

    examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
    .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
    Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
    Where does the information come from?
    Is the information supported by evidence?
    Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
    Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
    Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
    Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
    Purpose: the reason the information exists
    What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
    Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
    Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
    Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
    Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

    http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

  • Aizel Senobio

    WHETHER OR NOT THE WARMING IS ACTUALLY UNUSUAL OR IS BEING CAUSED BY MAN-MADE CO2, we’re just going to have to adapt to it because humans need to continue burning hydrocarbon fuels. Suddenly stopping fossil fuels use would be much more catastrophic to our world than anything climate change will do.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More