Massive fracture in Antarctic ice shelf is 70 miles long, a football field wide, and a third of a mile deep

By Tom Yulsman | December 5, 2016 12:22 pm
A massive rift in the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen C ice shelf, as photographed on Nov. 10, 2016, as photographed by a scientist on NASA's Icebridge mission, an airborne survey of polar ice. (Source: NASA)

A fissure in the Antarctic Peninsula’s Larsen C ice shelf, as photographed on Nov. 10, 2016 by a scientist on NASA’s IceBridge mission, an airborne survey of polar ice. (Source: NASA)

A massive rift in the Antarctic Peninsula’s Larsen C ice shelf has been growing steadily, threatening to cut all the way across. If it does, an iceberg roughly the size of the state of Delaware — and perhaps even bigger — will float off.

New observations by scientists on NASA’s IceBridge mission, an airborne survey of polar ice, reveal that the rift is now about 70 miles long. And it cuts down about 1,700 feet, all the way through the floating shelf of ice.

Should Larsen C throw off a Delaware-sized iceberg, it wouldn’t be terribly unusual in and of itself. Ice shelves naturally shed large chunks as part of their natural life cycles. “That’s just part of life for an ice shelf,” says Ala Khazendar of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “That’s how they behave.”

But scientists are concerned that if Larsen C does let loose a massive new iceberg, this will be just the beginning of an irreversible retreat under a warming climate, eventually leading to the demise of the entire ice shelf. And that, in turn, could lead to further sea level rise.

Larsen C forms part of an icy fringe along the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. Since it, like all ice shelves, floats on sea water, a collapse here will not by itself raise global sea levels.

3d-lis-120

Click the map to watch an animation showing the disintegration of a portion of the Larsen ice shelf in the early 2000’s. (Source: Scott Polar Research Institute)

But ice shelves like Larsen C act as massive buttresses, helping to slow the flow of grounded ice streams and glaciers behind them. When an ice shelf collapses, that grounded ice behind it accelerates toward the ocean. And that does help to raise sea level.

Larsen C neighbors a smaller portion of the broader icy fringe that disintegrated in 2002. That smaller portion had developed a rift very much like the massive Larsen C rift visible in the photo at the top of this post.

That oblique view of the Larsen C rift was photographed by scientists on NASA’s IceBridge mission on Nov. 10, 2016.

The giant rift in the Larsen C ice shelf is visible from space, as seen in this imagery acquired by NASA's Terra satellite on Nov. 10, 2016. In the animation, I've marked the position of the rift in blue. (Source: NASA Worldview)

Source: NASA Worldview

The giant rift in the Larsen C ice shelf is visible from space, as seen in this imagery acquired by NASA’s Terra satellite on the same day that scientists aboard the IceBridge mission photographed it. In the animation, I’ve marked the position of the rift in blue. Please click to enlarge the animation.

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

And here’s an even clearer view of the crack in the ice shelf, acquired on Aug. 22, 2016, also by Terra. The ice shelf comprises the left half of the image, and thinner sea ice appears on the right.

Other fissures are also visible in the image. But these have stopped growing, probably because of unseen obstacles in the ice, according to NASA. Meanwhile, the 70-mile long crack appears to have broken through those obstacles. “What’s happening now is different,” Khazendar says. “This crack goes farther and has started propagating northwards.”

ADVERTISEMENT
  • mrpuma2u

    I hope that my uncle that lives near Venice FL will not have to come and live with me.

    • ozonator

      He’ll be given a bag of coal and a NRA murder system from FEMA under the next administration.

    • OWilson

      Try and buy some waterfront!

      Prices are through the roof! Guess who’s buying? Bernie Sanders, the Hollywood Malibu/Miami/Martha’s Vineyard/Kennedy/Obama Crowd.

      What do they know that the dupes don’t?

      • Lawrence Sheperd

        You realize that Bernie Sanders sold oceanfront property to purchase lakefront property? Get your facts straight.

        • OWilson

          I was talking about waterfront properties. :)

          You need a remedial reading course!

          • Wallace Frantz

            No; wrong… You stated Bernie Sanders bought oceanfront property… He didn’t, he sold his ocean waterfront property. Why can’t you admit an error like an honest person would do?

          • OWilson

            I said he bought “waterfront”.

            Go to the back of the class.

            (And stop picking your nose! :)

          • Wallace Frantz

            The subject was ocean waterfront property…. Don’t be a childish sneak, it makes your nose run.

          • OWilson

            Folks are going South, to the Sun.

            And the waterfront.

            It’s a fact!

            The original poster probably does too!

          • Lawrence Sheperd

            In the context of this response, ‘waterfront’ logically implies ‘oceanfront.’ You need a remedial logic course.

  • Ldavis2349

    Yeah, the Keys are under water by now.

  • OWilson

    Irreversible?

    Who says?

    Do yourself a favor. Look at Google Time-Lapse.

    Look up Global Warming poster child Tuvalu. It is not washing away in 30 years.

    Then look up all major oceanfront cities, and see how they are growing their urban areas, much less being washed away.

    Docklands, wetlands, urban centers, parks, airports, even whole whole cities are being reclaimed from the ocean. :)

    You are still scaring the kids, but your days are numbered!

    • Mike Richardson

      Wilson, exactly who are you threatening now?! The moderator/blog author? Scientists in general? People who take pictures you don’t like? Exactly whose days are you declaring “numbered” (and do you more alarmingly have a particular number in mind)?

      • Tom Yulsman

        I’m guessing Mr. Wilson did not mean that literally. I think he was trying to say something like this: “the alarmists are already being proven wrong, and soon they will have to shut up.” Or some such. I don’t really know for sure, so I’ll let Mr. Wilson comment on his own behalf. But speaking for myself — as a science writer with 36 years experience , not a so-called “alarmist” — I am fairly confident that the laws of physics have not been repealed. So there is simply no question that sea level will continue to rise. How fast and by how much are legitimate questions. And the latest science suggests ‘faster and higher than we thought.’

        And that, of course, is why Mr. Wilson thinks I am an alarmist. He is wrong. I simply believe in physics. And despite what he might say here, he does not. He believes in politics.

        • OWilson

          Thanks Tom, for the somewhat saner take on my comments.

          Of course, I share the opinion that the AGW movement is a primarily a political movement, but obviously it also includes many who are not politically, or even scientifically sophisticated.

          It is political, because, a political solution is proposed that involves the arbitrary transfer of wealth from the Industrial West to the third world.

          At a time when the west is massively in unsustainable National Debt.

          Not to mention the usual alarmist hyperbole that I am “making threats” by pointing out the simple fact that the world’s waterfront cities are actually significantly growing on landfill, rather than being washed away!

          Peace!

          • Lawrence Sheperd

            Don’t worry Wilson. We won’t have to worry about the national debt when we’re worrying about being underwater.

            I live in Charleston SC and the coastal flooding is getting worse and worse every year, to say nothing of loss of wetlands and marsh due to sea level rise. I don’t need anyone to tell me sea levels are rising; I see it every day with my own eyes.

          • OWilson

            Win some, lose some. Mother Nature is not a cooperative Landlord :) She can get really mean!

            BUt, go to Youtiube and see amazing new airports being built on reclaimed land, around the world.

            See amazing new cities being built in Japan, Korea and China on reclaimed land. Whole Islands even.

            Charleston SC in not “the world”. You may have to move :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Likewise, Lawrence, we’ve been dealing with wetlands loss and rising sea level in Louisiana. And in August we experienced record-breaking rainfall and flooding in my part of the state, flooding my home as well as the homes of many of my family members. Over two feet of rainfall in a 24- hour period is not normal, but is unfortunately the type of extreme weather event you get with increased evaporation and resulting precipitation due to global warming. I can relate to your observations, but I’m afraid Ol’Wilson’s convinced himself that worldwide, more coastline is being gained than lost, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

          • OWilson

            Mother Nature offers no guarantees to folks who pitch their tents on wetlands, swamps, river deltas, natural flood plains, beaches, barrier reefs, and sand spits.

            Charlotte and New Orleans have a lot in common, in that respect.

            Likewise, folks continue to live on earthquake faults, under the shadow of volcanoes, in Tornado Alley, on the San Andreas Fault, perched on the very edge of a cliff, in the middle of dry flamable brushland, and in hurricane prone areas.

            They should not blame Mother Nature (or my SUV) or conservatives, Goerge Bush,for their poor choices.

            That’s just silly!

          • Mike Richardson

            There are hazards anywhere you might live, including where you plan to move. Is relocating to the Dominican Republic, at high risk for tropical storms and hurricanes, a poor choice on your part? And I don’t live on a historically flood prone property, as I’ve stated repeatedly (not a resident of New Orleans). Your assertion to the contrary constitutes an example of lying, which I believe you challenged me to provide–not a difficult feat when dealing with you, I’m afraid. No, the August floods were not typical, and climatologists have in fact referred to them as an example of localized effects of climate change. You’re free to peddle ignorance and untruths if you want, but don’t expect to go unchallenged.

          • OWilson

            Bla bla bla!

            Folks in the DR let you snowflakes worry about their hurricanes. Barely makes the news down there :)

            I go often in hurricane season.

            Like Columbus, I will not be blaming you , Bush, or my SUV If I’m a hurricane victim :)

            Peace and love, y’all!

          • Mike Richardson

            Now that’s a stupid comment, even by your already low standards. What I do at work has no bearing on comments I make in my free time, as a private citizen. But it’s yet another example of you wishing I’ll on others who disagree with you, while hypocritically arguing for the need to express your own contrarian views. Just like you seem to enjoy, or at least minimize, the suffering of disaster victims and place yourself on some pedestal above the rest of us. Whether you choose to pull your head out of its warm, dark resting place and acknowledge the science behind it or not, we are influencing climate and weather events, and it will affect you like the rest of us.

          • OWilson

            You seem to place folks on phony pedestals, rather too easily, for someone who is, as you say, the father of a child.

            Folks like you need group therapy or even take to the streets when your idols fall, and you realize you’ve been duped! But you never learn from the experience.

            As far as your job is concerned, you are politically active here.

            When we look at corruption in Federal Government Agencies, deleted government records, simultaneous crashed hard drives, destroyed computers, Pleading the Fifth, blaming low level rogue employees, we can easily see why these “low level rogue” employees in U.S, Federal Agencies can act against their perceived “boogymen” like me, a harmless old semi retired Candian gentleman.

            You have no sense of reality or perspective.

            You are dismissed!

            Adios amigo!

          • Mike Richardson

            “You have no sense of reality of perspective.” – – Speaking to a mirror, eh? LOL! Ditto the “deluded,” ” libelous, ” and “rabid” political partisan. Heck, by this point, you’re practically in Cujo territory. And the constant whining when someone calls your own nonpartisan rants for what they are– cry me a river, hypocrite. So adios, el loco.

            Oh, and the actual swamps are flooding, not draining, due to combined sea level rise and coastal erosion. That’s reality.

          • OWilson

            The Swamp is already being drained nationally.

            Your naked floundering here is more than adequate proof! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Boy, you truly are deluded. You think a Trump administration will “drain the swamp?”. LOL … His cabinet picks include a Labor Secretary who owns fast food franchises and opposes raising the minimum minimum wage, Secretaries of the Interior and Energy who are climate change deniers like yourself and additionally have strong ties to the fossil fuel industry, a Secretary of Education who supports private and religious schools at the expense of public education, and a front-runner for Secretary of State who’s considered a close friend of the Russian government. At this rate, we’re on track to have an administration that would make the corruption of Warren G. Harding’s presidency seem mild in comparison. If the swamp’s being drained, it’s only to fill it back up with even slimier denizens. Not surprising, though, that you would see this as some kind of improvement. Trump would likely consider you qualified for some kind of “environmental advocacy” position, I’m sure.😉

          • OWilson

            Pardon us if we don’t take your political predictions seriously, LOL

            Adios amigo!

          • Mike Richardson

            Running around like a lunatic in a panic is really more your forte amigo, so I’ll just leave the ridiculous hyperbole to the professional, and calmly digest the news. 😉

          • OWilson

            Conservatives don’t run around the streets, with their panties in a knot,

            We leave all that to you and your left wing voters :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Thanks for proving my point with another hyperbolic rant. Maybe you missed the news where a bipartisan group of senators, including John McCain, have demanded more information regarding the links between Putin and Trump’s election. Or the electors requesting a full intelligence briefing before voting next week. I’m hoping cooler heads than yours will get to the bottom of this issue, and respect the rule of law and the principles of democracy. And no, I’ m not hoping for any physical harm to befall Donald Trump — unlike you, I really don’t see violence as an acceptable means to a political end. Sad that you keep obviously projecting, instead of admitting you have a problem best treated by professionals in the mental health field. Until then, though, you’re doing a really bad job of representing conservatives as the most calm and rational group.

          • OWilson

            What’s to investigate?

            If all 17 of your Intelligence Agencies say that Russia has interfered in your. election, The election should be overturned and a response should be made now.

            Why kick it down the road unless it is all phony politics, as usual.

            Drain The Swamp, Now!

          • Maia

            So that explains everything! Whew. Mother Natue’s fault, not ours’! And if it’s HER fault, we humans can keep right on partying with a clear conscience.

          • OWilson

            Well, I suppose, you can keep right on partying like your High Priests, Al Gore, Obama, Lady Ga Ga, Madonna, Heinz-Kerry, Michael Moore, and Leonardo di Caprio, and even the Pope himself, with their jet planes, mansions, palaces, yachts, limos, tour buses and their other fossil fueled toys.

            The Pope, who blesses his poor, lives in obscene abject luxury with his own Country, his own palace, and even his own army.

            Or you can be like me, with less of a carbon footprint than any one of their servants. I sort and take out my own garbage :)

          • Maia

            I AM like you in one regard: I have a tiny carbon footprint.
            However I am nothing like your imaginary portrait above!

          • OWilson

            I didn’t think you were.

            But I hope you are not one of the chicken little snowflakes who enjoy the lifestyle brought to you by the fossil fueled Industrial Revolution and it’s second phase the Technological Revolution, and don’t really understand how it works.

            You depend on millions, yes Virginia, millions of miles of pipelines, gas, water, sewers, oil, billions of miles or wires, telephone, cable, fibre optic cables, brought right to your door!

            All the water you will ever need from dams.

            Millions of miles of roads, trails, Interstate Highways. to get you home for Thanksgiving.

            Everything you have in your home was manufactured somewhere by fossil fueled plants, It all comes to you in fossil fueled ships, trucks, vans.

            Likewise all that stuff in your local supermarket, same!

            Just think, fer chrissakes!

            Let me know when you throw out that computer, and start to grow your own food!

            You can walk the couple thousand miles to get your message to me! :)

          • BBQman

            Good points.

        • BBQman

          Tom, I reviewed all of your old threads and the high traffic ones all have One thing in common, do you know what that one thing is?

          Or it could be that you do not care for high traffic and only want an echo chamber of regulars, which I can respect since you are the site owner, but It seems like high traffic and a variety of information along with uninhibited thought would be preferable.

          Please share your thoughts.

          Have a Merry Christmas!

    • kevin

      while reclaiming land from the ocean happens that just means that the water levels rose enough for their to be either a need for more land where their was land before or a need to create more land where their has not been surface land before.and reclaiming land from the sea floor really doesn’t mean ocean level have or haven’t raised or lowered because your taking the dirt from the seafloor meaning its already under water

      as for global warming this really has little to no global warming propaganda in it as they said in the article there have been many breaks like this before and generally when they happen at locations that slow the more liquid sections of the shelf will flow more quickly into the ocean adding some amount of water into the ocean there fore raising the sea level how much it raises can be debated because depending on how much of the shelf flows into the ocean and after some get re frozen some evaporated it might not be a lot
      it being irreversible is a given really if it does release a massive ice berg and most of the more liquid parts of the shelf flow into the ocean than even a ice self freezes in that spot it wont be the same and we have no way to fix it cracking or breaking of or stop the flow so it is irreversible whether it is felt financially or by humans is not really the point if the water level is only raised a few centimeters we may not feel it and it will most likely either get evaporated or frozen some where else never having a true impact.

      • OWilson

        Human’s have always faced natural adversity, including rising water levels.

        They thrive in the most extreme temperature all over the world.

        Human’s have survived by adapting to and overcoming these challenges.

        Some are rugged individualists who not only survive, but thrive, show the way and lead.

        Others run around in a blue funk, weeping and wailing and self flagellating, bringing their chickens, even virgins to the shamans, medicine men, snake oil salesmen, seers, oracles, fortune tellers, even the third world politicians at the U.N.

        The latter get washed away, while new leaders emerge, elections take place, and the pendulum swings back to reality.

        How many more silly global warming “demonstrations’ getting frozen out like yesterday’s “Gore Effect” in Denver, does it take have their spouses, children employers, fellow workers neighbors question their sanity.

        (Or are the rent-mobs shipped by socialist/communist money and don’t even live there?)

        Oh for a free press to follow these “demonstrators” and ask a few simple questions, like:

        Where y”all from, what do y’all do?

        LOL

  • Doc2222

    This is all jut a liberal hoax! Donald Trump will singlehandedly go down there and prove that it is still pretty chilly in the Antarctic.

    • OWilson

      You made that up!

      In reality it was your Dear Leader Obama, who actually said, on his election:

      “THIS IS THE MOMENT WHEN THE RISE OF THE OCEANS BEGAN TO SLOW, AND OUR PLANET BEGAN TO HEAL!”.

      That’s why we continue to laugh at you guys! :)

      • Doc2222

        And that’s why you guys all have the IQs of laughing hyenas. Thanks for straightening that out for us!

        • OWilson

          Some great global warming logic there! :)

          • Small_Businessman

            Don’t worry. Once Obama leaves office, we’ll be rid of his hot air. Then we’ll have to worry about global cooling.

  • jack

    Discover magazine does a lot of great science. Until it gets into the religion of Goreballwarming and other nonsense. Yes, the polar regions do some strange stuff. Don’t forget that the oceans began to rise the 400 feet they did when Barney Rubble of the Flintstones started driving their SUV’s between the UK and France 14,000 years ago causing the northern polar ice cap to melt.

  • BBQman

    The extent of sea ice has always varied from year to year, see “Roger Vercel’s” writings, massive sea ice found floating in 1816 & 1817 as far south as the 40th parallel, for those same years “William Scoresby” found zero ice along the coast of Greenland between 74 & 75 degrees N, and let’s never forget that in 2010, 50 ships had to be freed by icebreakers off the coast of Stockholm in the Baltic.

    Sea ice today is within historical boundaries when we use the information in old ship logs.

    Ice core data shows temperatures were higher many times in the past, 1125ad, 75bc,1350bc, 1675bc, 2250bc, 3010bc, 3230bc, 3682bc, 4012bc, 4836bc, 5722bc, 6823bc, and 7268bc. Per the 2004 Greenland GISP ice core data.
    Also, testing methods used to determine what our assumed global CO2 levels were 200 years ago could easily be off by up to around 85 ppm, it is believed by many critical Thinkers that global CO2 levels back then could have been as high as 300 ppm or more, it’s hard to pinpoint due to the sloppiness of sparse regional sampling which in no way can be extrapolated into global results, and since the northern hemisphere has been recovering and warming back up since the Little Ice Age and its 600 year long impact which ended at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, of course our planet has been warming back up in a natural cycle of a bit less then 1 degree Celsius per century, thus allowing our Flora and Fauna to recover and produce more (CO2 at 280 ppm is to low for a healthy earth) CO2 as a result, which is good, keeping in the mind other sources and sinks, and natural degradation from extreme temperature lows above 3,000 meters most of the year within the range of the Hadley convection, it becomes obvious to even the most causal thinker that CO2 levels between 345 to 1,000 ppm can not have any kind of global greenhouse effect because of the rapid heat dissipation and degradation of the CO2.

    “During the Little Ice Age, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions.”

    The funny thing about the other times in our recent history, is that man was not spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, must have been because of our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt which is influenced by magnetism, solar cycles, volcanic activity,our moon, rotation of our core, oceans conveyance and it’s influence on the jet stream which is the last stage climate driver for our earth..what will they think of next!

    • ShawnNJ ✓President Trump

      Hmmm..23 degrees here today in PA. Love this Global warming. Opps…Climate Change!

      • TRL

        Idiot

        • BBQman

          Mr. TRL: If you want to keep commenting here, show at least a modicum of respect. Be serious, or you will be gone.

          • Echohawk

            Just a heads up , I deleted a comment from Wallace Frantz as he posted a personal attack against you for up voting one of my comments .
            He seems to have an unusual amount of malice towards you .

          • BBQman

            He is probably one of the “smasher crew” that was set up to jump on deniers like me!
            ____________________
            “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.
            _______________________

            Wallace is mad because I did not put his name on the “Crusher crew” list that I have been posting to those on the list.

            There are at least 15 or so AGW settled science folks who attack me on other sites!:0)

          • Paul McCormick

            But…. you are still standing, they aren’t very good or is it you are that much better.
            The latter I think.

          • Echohawk

            Well he was on one of our science reports and was making assertions that clearly indicated he has zero science background even on very basic chemistry knowledge .
            One assertion was methane is released from thawing permafrost in its pure form , and similar assertions all of which I corrected .
            But he does not even have the basic understanding of how methane is created in nature and why it’s always accompanied with sulphur compounds .
            Then got hostile and delved into personal attacks against me , our channel FR Rabbit and you .
            My assessment is he is a propagandist that likes to post reports but have little to no understanding of their imports so is unable to differentiate between junk science and valuable research

          • BBQman

            That’s how I see his friends as well, they never answer questions, and only deflect.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I deleted an accidental double post.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You do have a big problem with the facts and truth Echohawk…. We see you are in good company here with BBQman.

          • Echohawk

            One just needs to read what you wrote quote
            ” That is not so…. Who told you that falsehood? As I previously told you, before NG did, methane gas has zero odor. Methane is methane, also termed “natural gas”, there are no other chemicals in it. Natural gas needs no refining. Unquote

          • Wallace Frantz

            Yes indeed Echohawk, I wrote that and I was referring to the Arctic methane as you well knew which was the subject matter of the article and thread.

            I was not talking about natural gas wells where the natural gas was pumped from natural gas or oil well where there are other chemicals in the liquid natural gas that must be refined.

            The methane in the frozen Arctic permafrost is not liquid gas in an oil well or natural gas well.

            The CH4 locked in Arctic permafrost is in the form of microscopic sized bits of CH4 and it is just CH4 which is odorless.

            The fact it is odorless was the argument you initiated as you didn’t have a clue of what you were talking about and I tried to help you by correcting your many errors.

            You took offense and barred me permanently from YOUR personal websites, as you have done to others, like Starfire for an example. .

            You cannot handle being told you are wrong, you are the one who controls your websites and you never make any mistakes and now it is rather obvious you also support the AGW deners..

            And yes I was surprised of your friendship and support of global warming deniers like this BBQman but we can see here you are in lockstep with him.

            Strange behavior for someone who claims to not support the global warming deniers.

          • Echohawk

            What you were referring to still does not remove the fact that methane is always acompanied by sulphur just based on how it is created in nature , so it is never found in its pure form and by itself . Any science student in grade school could tell you that , spare us your ignorant blathering please , I have truly had enough of them . I spent hours yesterday taking the time to actually broaden your knowledge base so that you didn’t make these embaressing blunders but to no avail .
            But this is off topic good day Mr .Frantz

          • Wallace Frantz

            You just don’t know what you are talking about Echohaw and won’t admit you erred like a decent honest person would do. .

            Much methane, CH4 is pure natural gas, the Arcitic methane is pure Ch4 and has zero odor…

          • Echohawk

            methane in its pure form doesn’t but it’s never in its pure form in nature , example swamp gas is methane but it smells like rotten eggs because if the presents of sulphur which is a by product of how methane is made in nature .

          • Wallace Frantz

            Echohawk… A perfect example of your obtuse and ignorant arguments.

            The rotten smell of swamp gas is due to bacteria consuming the methane. Same thing happen is animal guts’.

            I have already explained that to you because you didn’t understand why swamp gas stunk… You still don’t understand because you won’t admit you were mistaken and learn the truth.

          • Wallace Frantz

            CH4 is never in it’s pure form you say, again, and again and again… You are wrong Echohawwk.

            As anyone can see from the article, Ch4 is not really the natural gas” we use for home heating, cooking, powerplants, etc. Natural gas is about 75% Ch4.

            Quote > “Methane like the Arctic methane locked in permafrost is a colorless, odorless gas with a wide distribution in nature.

            It is the principal component of natural gas, a mixture containing about 75% Ch4,, 15% ethane and 5% other hydrocarbons, such as propane and butane.”).

            The CH4 in the Arctic’s permafrost is not natural gas, it is just Ch4, but is incorrectly often termed “natural gas”.

            http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/METHANE/Methane.html

          • Echohawk

            Quote
            These population bins, collectively, made up to ~10% of the metagenomic datasets, and represented diverse taxonomic groups and metabolic lifestyles tuned toward sulfur cycling, hydrogen metabolism, methanotrophy, and organic matter oxidation.
            Unquote
            http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00579/full

          • Wallace Frantz

            That is nothing I ever quoted and has nothing at all to do with melting Arctic permafrost and releasing odorless Arctic methane gas, which is what the thread was about.

          • Echohawk

            No I quoted that from an article , please keep up

          • Wallace Frantz

            I’m keeping up Echo, don’t need your help…

            Yeah I know you did but never knew why nor why you are repeating it here. The issue was melting Arctic ice and permafrost and vast amounts of releasing methane and you argued about it. You made no sense at all.

          • Echohawk

            No , because you thought I was quoting you , lol that’s not keeping up .
            Mr Frantz your cup is obviously very full and so no room for added data , if you think that methane magically appears in its pure form when no empirical scientific based facts supports this that’s fine . I really don’t care .
            It is unfortunate that you will not broaden your knowledge base because the lack thereof removes the credibility of the rest of a given comment you make .
            I am done talking to you any further replies will be ignored .

          • Wallace Frantz

            Why would I have thought that since you posted a link for the article you were quoting from? I am not stupid Echohawk.

            What is gong on here is you are trying to do all you can to discredit me because I showed where you didn’t know what you were talking about on the Arctic methane issue and the more you replied the worse you looked. You had to start lying to cover your mistakes.

            So you have to show I am not credible and started that with saying things about me that are not true here on this thread before I had even shown up here.

            That is a sign of a sick minded sociopath mental disorder Echohawk. You cannot be wrong and you will not accept any corrections or criticism and you own your website, you are the queen there and any who annoy you are zapped… That is your MOI, it wasn’t only me.

            Take a hike Echo; you zapped me at MY request and you then had to continue your nonsense arguments with whining to the wacko GW Denier BBQman on this thread… You need help Echo. .

          • Wallace Frantz

            On the contrary, there is a lot of scientific evidence that CH4 forms naturally and it not contaminated with Sulphur or other chemicals…. CH4 is CH4.

            When CH4 has become liquid natural gas in an oil well it is contaminated with sulphur… The Arctic methane is methane and it is ODORLESS gas Echo.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Echohawk,,, You wrote > (“What you were referring to still does not remove the fact that methane is always acompanied by Sulphur”). You are wrong…. Prove that misinformation “Echobirdy”.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Hi BBQman… You threatened TRL with being blocked here if he wasn’t nice to people who display stupidity.. Are you the MOD here BBQman?

          • BBQman

            I don’t threaten people, I was calling him out for being rude. How is “or you will be gone “threating? You should be more concerned with the good work that Scott Pruitt is about to preform at the EPA.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I’m sure you told him if he wanted to post comments to stop being rude to others… That was a threat BBQma… Are you the MOD here? You didn’t answer that question.

            The new administration will very likely insure we do have runaway and irreversible global warming within the next 8 years.

            It will be a horrific global disaster for all life, but you aren’t smart enough to understand it BBQman because you deny the truth and facts of the science.

          • BBQman

            No, I am not a mod here, but I understand what type of behavior Tom finds unacceptable, it was a friendly reminder for him to conduct himself as an adult.

            Wallace, the next 30 some odd years are going to be colder than the last 30, and it has nothing to do with CO2 from fossil fuel. Read your history from about 1774 till around 1812, that is the type of weather we are in for.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Why is calling an idiot an insult? Your reply to the may was not friendly at all No Mod. It was a threat, pure and simple.

          • BBQman

            Wallace, Have you felt better since you quit beating your wife?
            See, two can play that silly game.
            Let’s don’t play your false premise game, please get a new script please, thank you.

            Now, are you going have a dialogue with me about the facts and sources of my top post or not? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1c618d2e246aaccdb30b2dee049fd039523dbd3e30c7c043adfa690a058a3fc.gif

          • Wallace Frantz

            I’m not playing any games with you BBQman…. I wanted to know if you were the MOD here since you threatened a guy with being blocked or barred for his appropriate reply to another,

            Now you say it wasn’t a threat… Yes; it clearly it was…You are trying to play games bud and I don’t play your corrupt games and you can stop trying to spread lies about me.

          • Wallace Frantz

            With the current rate of rising atmospheric CO2 at over 3ppm a year and that incredible increase is accelerating, I doubt most life will still exist here 30 years form now…

            The last two mas extinctions occurred when the oxygen level plummeted very quickly when the ocean waters warmed to the point where the coral reefs died off and that is where most of our oxygen comes from, the phytoplankton which came from LIVE coral reefs.

            So we don’t need to worry much about rising sea levels or dying off polar bears, it’s the now dying coral reef that are the big concern, or they should be.,,,, It is all due to AGW BBMan.

          • OWilson

            You are deluded and need help badly.

            Why would you believe that 3,000.000,000 years of evolution to our present state will all end in the brief blink of an eye that YOU happen to be going through you adult crisis (the next 30 years)?

            You really believe that YOU are THAT special? :)

            Maybe it’s your coffee?

            Try some deep breathing!

          • Wallace Frantz

            You OWILSON with utter ignorance and stupidity wrote, > (“Why would you believe that 3,000.000,000 years of evolution to our present state will all end in the brief blink of an eye”)…

            OW, are you honestly that ignorant about how the past two mass extinctions of life on Earth occurred? A “blink of an “eye” in geological time is correct.

            http://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-12-15/methane-burps-ticking-time-bomb/

          • Paul

            You know my friend, I didn’t much credit your theory of an orchestrated “Crusher Crew” until I met your special friend TIP. What a delightful person…Not.

          • BBQman

            TIP, is evenmindeds nickname?

          • Paul
          • odin2

            “Wallace is mad because I did not put his name on the “Crusher crew” list that I have been posting to those on the list.”

            Where does one find the list?

      • Wallace Frantz

        Is it winter time in Pennsylvania now? Was that 23 degrees the high or low temp that 7 days ago?

        Are you unaware that there was a massive “blanket” of very cold Arctic air that swooped down to almost all of the United States because of a wandering Jet Stream? Yep, that is a fact and it’s back again now.

        The reason for that is the massive loss of ice in the Arctic region and the Arctic’s climate and weather have always been the driving force for climate and weather conditions around the globe. You didn’t know that did you?

        • ShawnNJ ✓President Trump

          Stay out of that Jet Stream it froze your brain!

          • Wallace Frantz

            LOL,, you are in it too.. Your weak attempt to make fun of the very important global warming issue is what is a bit funny and pitiful too.

      • BBQman

        Here’s the real reason for climate change, and it has “very very very” little to do with CO2.http://youtu.be/AtG1paGpfv0

        • CB

          “Here’s the real reason for climate change, and it has “very very very” little to do with CO2.”

          Uh huh, but that’s youtube, Barbie.

          You do realise literally anyone can upload to that site… right?

          “Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂)… certain effects seem likely: On average, Earth will become warmer.”

          climate.nasa.gov/causes

    • Wallace Frantz

      OMG; an excellent science article about the Larson C ice sheet breaking off from Antarctica with an ice berg the size of the state of Delaware and here comes the first comment from one of the most active global warming deniers saying it is all natural and there is no problem, global warming is a religious hoax..

      s the article states when that ice shelf breaks off it will create another feedback loop to the loss of ice on the polar ice cap.

      Meanwhile the Northern polar ice cap is well on it’s way to a total meltdown and at the current rate of freshwater ice melt off of Greenland we may see sea level rises of more than 5 feet before 2022. That is what happens when the polar fresh water ice melts.

      I am truly amazed that people like BBQman are not shut down because their disinformation if very harmful for all life.

      They really should have to fully explain themselves to a world court and be judges for what they are doing that is so wrong and harmful, with a jury to determine if indeed they are innocent of no wrongs or guilty as I say the are.

      Actually their guilt is self evident by what they write, such as BBQman’s comments here I am replying to.

      • BBQman

        Which of my facts do you disagree with Wallace Frantz?

        Considering that over 500 trillion tons of rain fall annually, and your inability to account for uplift buoyancy, your projections are unsubstantiated, you leave out to many other quantifiables as well.

        Please revise your response into something that is measurable and resubmit for my review, thank you.

        • Wallace Frantz

          What FACTS did you post BBQman? … You are saying the loss of the freshwater ice at the poles will not cause seal level rise.

          Haa haa haa… Please do stop trying to sound educated okay?
          Well BBman, many thousands of very well educated scientists from all around the world would say you are wrong… Me too.

          • BBQman

            Ignore and deflect, that is all you have, no wonder ROO2 won’t let you join the “smusher crew”.

            You still have not challenged anything I posted, why?

            Because even you Wallace Frantz can not!
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16d037d178ce04080d5db7c787e8c258508ced962d834efa691cf10465bbf563.jpg

          • Wallace Frantz

            I challenge your denial of what is occurring now globally with global warming that is presently happening due to a very high level of atmospheric CO2 caused from burning fossil fuels and you deny all of it.

            Why did you argue what is published in this fine article about the melting freshwater ice on Antarctica?

          • BBQman

            This should be easy, just tell me how CO2 drives the climate in your own quantifiable words, no links allowed.

          • Wallace Frantz

            CO2??? __ The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally BBman.

            When the Arctic loses it’s ice as it is doing, the global climate is adversely effected, as has been occurring during the past few years.

            How does CO2 play a part there? Easy BB guy… The high level of atmospheric CO2 has been the major factor to cause a very warm Arctic Region and massive loss of Arctic ice resulted.

            So that is how it works BBman as Dr. John Tyndall explained would happen about 140 years ago…. Tyndall was right.

          • BBQman

            Tyndall left out many measureables. The theory of CO2 as a climate driver is false, our primary climate drivers are related to Earth’s Equatorial tilt and orbital eccentricities that are established by earth’s two cores, inner and outer, the outer is liquid and has a directional flow which produces centripetal accelerations which is influenced by the electromagnetic energy of the inner core, but also is subject to 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 centripetal accelerations 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 the centripetal accelerations produced, 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.

            The Earth’s Ecuadorial tilt, 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 electromagnetic forcing’s, which influence our own electromagnetic 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 are the secondary climate drivers.
            I would humbly state that our climate is within the normal boundaries of how it has always preformed, of course abundant volcanic outputs, solar anomalies & 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 electromagnetic 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.

          • evenminded

            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

            What’s the over/under for idiots upvoting this one? Looks like 6 and counting right now.

          • Echohawk

            Even if BBQman was not my friend , your comment would make me instantly want to up vote him .
            Not dealing with the full content of a post but rather use it as an opportunity to express derision for all who don’t agree with you is not beneficial to the topic of discussion , it doesn’t give credence to the seriousness of the topic , and certainly removes the intelligence from any conversation .

          • evenminded

            Upvote away. It’s not surprising that morons upvote other morons.

            BBQman has already removed all intelligence from the conversation. That happened as soon as he claimed something as ridiculous and uninformed as “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”.

            Why don’t you take a stab at educating your friend if you have the ability? Perhaps then he and his supporters won’t be so ignorant.

          • Echohawk

            The one thing I have learned in my research or compiling any report of findings is humility No one has all the answers and those that think they do will never expand their base knowledge , nor will they add to mankinds knowledge base because their cup is already full .
            The complexity of this topic encompasses many different scientific disciplines and all have something to offer in furthering our understanding of our planet and the changes we are witnessing . Given mankinds rather limited understanding of this topic no information should be treated with arrogant derision .

          • evenminded

            Perhaps you should focus on the science. If you did, then you would realize just how embarrassed you should be for BBQman. Then you might try to help him to gain an understanding of the topics that he makes so many absurd statements on.

          • Echohawk

            Lol and where has my focus not been on science ?
            I tried to really teach something to a commenter the other day one that seems to support you ( literally spent hours ) as he was quite determined to say that methane from thawing permafrost is released in its pure form and that methane does not need to be refined ( sulphur extracted ) before it’s used
            I even gave an excellent link explaining how that methane is created and why certain other gases and elements will be found .
            What I received from that commenter was deflections ,denials and personal attacks .

            If you have a disagreement with what BBQman has posted ( someone who I find is very intelligent and listens to new ideas or data) then give a detailed breakdown of what he has missed or the author he is quoting has missed in the exactness that your are now espousing to .

          • evenminded

            LOL

            If you think BBQman is very intelligent, then why in the world does he continue to make ridiculous claims like, “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”?

          • Tom Yulsman

            Evenminded: Please refrain from ad hominem attacks.

          • Echohawk

            I don’t agree entirely with you although I am not discounting the points you have raised , my research points at rainforests that have a far greater affect on stabilizing our climate , balancing GHGs levels , to their necessary cooling affects and so their destruction ( 90% globally ) has left the planet extremely sensitive and reactive to any activity natural ( volcanic ) or manmade .
            The first thing we see when huge swaths of forests are taken out is a dramatic reduction in soil moisture , rainfall and increase of average temperatures which increases slightly each year as less and less rainfalls This also creates desertification in some cases and the lowering of beneficial and neccesssry microorganisms in the soil .
            It has an accumulative and direct affect on moisture that falls in other regions and the trade winds that move neccessary rain clouds around .
            If you think of rainforests as the lungs of the planet they produce oxygen and help balance GHGs both in normal conditions and more importantly during times of huge fluctuations from volcanic eruptions from their absorbtion of CO2 to their suspected ability to hasten the conversion of methane to CO2 and water vapour .
            The destruction of key rainforests has changed weather patterns , environments that have evolved to expect certain rainfall levels are no longer receiving that moisture , and we are getting much more severe weather in other areas ( tornadoes ) as multiple regional temps are increased they create these storms .
            Basically we have made the planet hyper sensitive .
            Solution start restoring these rainforests and teaching better logging practices , aid nations that are plagued with illegal logging and help countries that import lumber to have better systems with insuring they are only importing legally obtained lumber .

          • BBQman

            I have to run some errands, will respond later this evening! There is much we agree on.

          • Wallace Frantz

            BBQman…. It is disturbing to see you get so many up votes for that incredibly ignorant and stupid BS. We do know there are a lot of AGW deniers though. It is troubling.

          • BBQman

            As always, you just insult me and ignore my facts…..figures.

            Well, Merry Christmas Wallace and have a happy new year!

          • Wallace Frantz

            Shove it BBguy.

          • BBQman

            Pitiful…..please take time and learn the sequential order the all climate drivers, assign impact values for each driver, then submit your findings to me and I will be happy to grade your work…

          • Wallace Frantz

            I gave you my answer BBguy and it is correct, 100% correct and if you disagree prove me wrong.

            You said NO Links so I honored your request and you got no links… Go find where I was wrong or STFU and don’t give me any of your phony “Merry Christmas” garbage…

            I don’t respect or like any of the professional AGW deniers such as yourself. You are despicable and are a threat for all life on Earth… Merry Christmas my but. Shove it.

          • BBQman
          • Wallace Frantz

            Right BBQman,,,, and you are the pigeon.

          • Wallace Frantz

            FACTS? ___ Don’t use BIG words you don’t understand BBQGuy. The only facts you use are disinformation and WattsUpWithThat BS and lies.

          • BBQman

            Your insults are not helping our dialogue, now calm down and please list out the sequential order of all climate drivers and their impact values, return to me, and I will grade your work, thank you.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8b9a16cde63487bc886af838efd01df7597b4a6fd8a19967699f42cb262a2e31.jpg

          • Wallace Frantz

            I already answered your question BBq, you didn’t approve of my reply, I don’t care an I am not in a dialogue with you.

            I don’t insult you BBQ, speaking the truth about someone is not an insult.

            I have things to do,,, go annoy someone else. Your crazy non scientific comments about AGW are annoying, boring and tiresome..

          • Wallace Frantz

            BBQman… You wrote, > (“Tyndall left out many measureables.”).. Is that a fact? __ like what?

            I seriously doubt that you have any idea at all of what the proven and accepted science theory of GHGs by Dr. John Tyndall is BBQguy.

            I never stated CO2 was the primary climate driver so you may get off that irrational kick BBQguy. Among other maladies you obviously suffer from a serious reading comprehension disability.

            Naturally the Earth’s tilt, distance from the sun, rotation speed, tidal wave action, gravitational pull of our moon and the sun, to name some things, all have a factor on near everything on Earth,,,, but the current global warming is due to human’s burning fossil fuels for the past 150 years and an atmospheric CO2 level over 330ppm and rising past 401ppm..

          • BBQman

            Here something interesting.http://youtu.be/gyffz_yqY9E

          • Wallace Frantz

            Oh-oh…. The Earth has started to “wobble”… My, my, imagine that….. Good thing some of your AGW denier friends found that problem BBQman…. Or was it a real scientist ?

            I wonder if the Earth was wobbling 260 and 55 million years ago? How about 800,000 years ago? ___ 6,000?

            Want to know something BBguy? …. You should learn when it is time to shut it off, along with your good supporter friends Echohawk and Cold Miser.

          • BBQman

            I fear for you Wallace, your mind is closed to any logical debate, your hate is destroying you.

            You really should look into electromagnetic forces and how they impact our climate and orbital eccentricities, my patience with you is about at its end, be well.

          • Wallace Frantz

            BBman….. You wrote > (“my patience with you is about at its end, “)…. I certainly do hope so.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Hey BBQman…. Don’t try to use words like “Logical” , “Honest”, “Sensible”, “Truly”…. You really should fear for yourself, you are one very sick minded disgrace to the human race.

          • Cold Miser

            “The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally BBman.”
            What? Where did this new science come from? While oceans have much to do with our global climate, I’ve never heard the Arctic as the main climate driver.

            Yes, Tyndall was right….. when he concluded that water vapour was the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. That’s what Tyndall concluded over 100 years ago.

            Do you know why the IPCC needs water vapor for CO2 to be “a climate driver”?

          • Wallace Frantz

            BBQman said no support links allowed.

            It is a well and long known scientific fact that the climate of the Arctic is the driving force for global climate. /////

            That’s well known by intelligent and educated people.

          • Cold Miser

            It should just be as easy for you to name several published papers that support such a strange theory. However, the no link policy from BBQman doesn’t have to apply to me and in regards to the Arctic. I think BBQman wanted to see if you understand and can explain in your own words how CO2 drives climate. I don’t think he was expecting you to claim Arctic Ice melt drives climate. I don’t think anyone was expecting that. Is this what you truly believe? And if so, what lead you to think this? If the Arctic is the driver, then what is warming and cooling the Arctic? Itself?

            Last I heard from scientists, the driving force behind climate is the energy input from the sun and the variance of that energy received due to numerous factors such as the Earth’s axis, etc. The ocean is also dubbed a major climate driver.
            “It becomes clear that there is an almost mechanistic system by which the ocean drives climate change, which is why it was dubbed by scientists as the “global heat engine.”

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanClimate/ocean-atmos_phys.php

            “The dynamics of the deep ocean directly influence the Earth’s climate.”
            http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/ocean-circulation-implicated-past-abrupt-climate-changes

          • Wallace Frantz

            Yes the ocean temps do effect the global climate… So do many other things, such as forests and winds and deserts and mountain ranges ocean currents like the Gulf Stream and of course the four climate seasons.

            Howsomeever…. The Arctic Region’s climate has always been the (driving force) for global climate.

            The loss of the Arctic’s perennial ice has caused a major impact upon global climate. It all begins with the atmospheric CO2 level and then CH4 level along with N2O level and the rapid warming of the Arctic Region.

            Btw; I am fully aware that I didn’t have to honor BBQman’s request of “no links”, he wanted MY OPINION…

            I did honor his request and gave a very good reply to his request…. If he and you and or anyone else don’t like or approve of my reply that is your prerogative and I don’t care if you agree or not.

            You want some links that back up what I posted? Do a Goodle search and if you can’t find em let me know and I’ll lead you to them.

          • Cold Miser

            “The Arctic Region’s climate has always been the (driving force) for global climate.” It’s fine if it’s your opinion, but it’s not a fact.

          • Wallace Frantz

            It’s the opinion of the world’s top level climatologists and likely most climatologists but I cannot say they have all written it. I agree with the vast majority of scientists on the issue and it is my opinion.

          • Cold Miser

            “It’s the opinion of the world’s top level climatologists and likely most
            climatologists but I cannot say they have all written it.” Well one would be a start at least. Because I have not read or heard of any scientific peer review published paper that claims Arctic melting ice is the main driving force of earths climate.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Cold Miser again you wrote > (“Because I have not read or heard of any scientific peer review published paper that claims Arctic melting ice is the main driving force of earths climate”).

            Neither have I CM and neither have I ever stated it was the main driver for Earth’s climate. Stop lying about what I have written.

            I (*have stated*) the climate of the Arctic Region is the driving force for global climate.

            The rapidly warming Arctic due to AGW and loss of the Arctic’s freshwater ice and the Arctic ocean’s perennial ice are the major adverse effects of the Arctic’s climate and weather.

            Don’t take a few words of mine OUT OF CONTEXT and try to prove what I wrote is incorrect.

            (*Out of context*)…… That is one of the major dishonest ploys the AGW deniers use to spread disinformation about AGW….

            Always remember how the false and very damaging “Climategate” story originated.

          • Cold Miser

            “Neither have I CM and neither have I ever stated it was the main driver for Earth’s climate. Stop lying about what I have written.”

            I’m not lying Wallace. If you hadn’t had stated that the Arctic region drives the climate globally in one sentence, then in the very next sentence say the lost of Arctic ice effects the global climate, I wouldn’t have asked you about it in the first place.

            “CO2??? __ The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally BBman.

            When the Arctic loses it’s ice as it is doing, the global climate is adversely effected, as has been occurring during the past few years.”

            Instead of clarifying that’s not what you meant when I asked you about it, you continued on…. “The Arctic Region’s climate has always been the (driving force) for global climate.” And supplied two links and cherry-picked a highlight, “Changes in the Arctic will not only affect local people and ecosystems but also the rest of the world, because the Arctic plays a special role in global climate.”

            I mean, what else am I supposed to think?

            Now, you seem to downgrade your statement a bit from: “The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally…” to “The rapidly warming Arctic due to AGW and loss of the Arctic’s freshwater ice and the Arctic ocean’s perennial ice are the major adverse effects of the Arctic’s climate and weather.”

            Wallace, you are the one who is lying through misleading statements. I have no problem if you want to admit a mistake, that the Arctic’s melting Ice/climate is not a major climate driver, but do it graciously. I also have no problem if you want to admit you were wrong about the Arctic being the main climate driver also. I have admitted mistakes in the past. I’m not afraid to do so. If I have misunderstood you, why only clarify now by altering what you have said about the Arctic and not sooner?

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote, > (“then in the very next sentence say the lost of Arctic ice effects the global climate,”)… Yeah, so? It does but it isn’t the driving force for global climate and I never said it was.

            I wrote, > (“The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally BBman.”)….. That is correct

            Next I wrote > (“the lost of Arctic ice effects the global climate,”)… That is correct.

            However; you keep saying I say the loss of Arctic ice is he driving force for global climate… You said that in your first reply to me… You cannot understand that which is written. I have never ever said that…

            You are reading what you wish to read CM, and then stating what you want others to believe it stated. You are lying with the intent to justify your false agenda.

            Hey are you on BBQman’spayroll? Just wondered.

            .

          • Cold Miser

            I’ve shown you that the Arctic climate does NOT drive the climate globally. Revisit the dozen (give or take a few) peer-review/articles I gave you that I know you did not read. Try reading them. Then maybe you can get back to me.
            In the meantime Wallace, Merry Christmas. I wish you no will Ill just because what you believe is incorrect, and that you resorted to lies and insults towards me.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote > (“I’ve shown you that the Arctic climate does NOT drive the climate globally”)…. No; you have not shown me anything except that you are a stuck record and cannot reason anything and you are a liar.

          • Cold Miser

            I have shown you…. you just didn’t read the peer-review I provided you, and lied about it.
            I know you didn’t read all the peer-review I gave you since some are behind a paywall.
            As I said, I can’t help you if you choose to ignore the peer-review I gave you to show the real drivers of climate.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You lie that I am trying to change my positon of what is the driving force of global climate by writing this > (“Now, you seem to downgrade your statement a bit from: “The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally…” to “The rapidly warming Arctic due to AGW and loss of the Arctic’s freshwater ice and the Arctic ocean’s perennial ice are the major adverse effects of the Arctic’s climate and weather.”).

            I wrote that and it is correct and it does not in any way alter what I wrote that the Arctic’s climate is the driving force of global climate.

            There are several things that have dramatically altered the Arctic’s climate in the past 30 years and I listed some of those things..

            Another is the change of the Gulf Stream current route which now helps to warm the Arctic Ocean.. That ocean current change is due to global warming, loss of glaciers in the Andes and drying up Amazon feeder rivers.

            It is all due to AGW CW and that is what you deny the most and try to discredit any who argue it with you and your corrupt fellow AGW deniers.

            You may as well give it up… I have a lot to do now and enjoy my family for a few days… So if you wish to carry on with your denials and lies of what I wrote, knock yourself out.

          • Cold Miser

            The only one who is denying anything is you not reading the peer-review I have given you. I know you didn’t read the last 5 I gave you within the hour. It’s not possible. You claimed the Arctic climate drives global climate. It does not. There is a difference between what you wrote: The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally…” to “The
            rapidly warming Arctic due to AGW and loss of the Arctic’s freshwater
            ice and the Arctic ocean’s perennial ice are the major adverse effects
            of the Arctic’s climate and weather.” Observing that downplay is not lying. It’s pointing it out. You just confirmed again that you claim the Arctic climate drives climate globally. It does not. I’ve offered peer-review papers that say it doesn’t. I offered peer-review papers that show the true climate drives. I can’t help you if you ignore them and believe what you believe. But I can’t claim, and neither can any respectable scientist from the organizations you listed, that the Arctic climate drives climate globally. I’m still waiting for you to provide such evidence that ANY scientist has published a paper saying such.
            So forgive me If I don’t respond to your nonsense anymore.

          • Wallace Frantz

            What on Earth is wrong with your head Cold Miser? Where have you seen me argue against what those articles you linked say? No place.

            What causes ocean currents and wind currents to have a dramatic change? After they change they have a large impact on global climate. What caused them to change?

            Don’t you know how to reason things? Obviously you do not know how to reason.

          • Cold Miser

            Wallace, the only one who is sick in the head is you….. What normal person would respond like this? ” replied to all of your replies wacko and you initiated this sorry but
            discussion …. Bye- bye. Don’t fall over a cliff or get hit in the
            head by a bolt of lightening.”

            What you are arguing is that The Arctic Climate is the main driver of global climate. I’ve shown you it’s not through peer-review, while asking you to support what you claim, which you haven’t.

            I’ve already shown you the main climate driver, which in turn drives ocean currents and wind in several different ways, through peer-review.
            The sun. Here: http://disq.us/p/1eq6ttk
            “I’ve already pointed out several comments ago what most scientists
            consider the major driver of climate. The sun, position of earth, the
            ocean, etc. These are well known, well accepted, and well documented in
            thousands of published papers.”
            http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/E1406.abstract
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5546/1431.2.summary
            http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141007
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6194/322

            While I agree changes in the Arctic can influence our climate, it’s not the same as being the main driver of climate, which is what you are claiming. I’ve been waiting for you to provide such evidence that ANY scientist has published a paper saying such. You admitted you couldn’t, here: “There are no peer review papers I am aware of on the web that say that..”
            http://disq.us/p/1eqmo62
            So forgive me If I don’t respond to your nonsense anymore.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote, > (“What you are arguing is that The Arctic Climate is the main driver of global climate.”)…. Correct.

            You have shown me nothing… The “peer reviewed” papers you cite, do not say what you are saying on the issue and you are a very badly stuck record and don’t know when you are beat and realize it is time to shut the F up.

          • Cold Miser

            As I said, you need to read the peer-review I gave you to know that they say. I know you didn’t read them. They are evidence what the real climate drivers are, and it’s not the Arctic Climate as you claim. Now what else are you going to lie about? Insults only make you look less intelligent, did you know that?

          • Wallace Frantz

            Why do you say it is not a fact Cold Miser?

            That is okay if that is your opinion. … Have you read the articles on the issue that I posted links for you to read?

            What do the top climate scientists at NSIDC, NASA, NOAA, CDIAC, have to say about that opinion I have?

          • Cold Miser

            Because the very two articles you linked to are not based on any published scientific peer review papers as far as I can tell. While published peer-review does not guarantee it’s validity, at least it’s potentially credible backed with data, evidence or observations. You do understand the merits of published peer-review over an article, right?
            I would of thought it would be rather obvious that I did read the two articles you linked too, since I pointed out they do not say what you claim they said, and why.

            “What do the top climate scientists at NSIDC, NASA, NOAA, CDIAC, have to say about that opinion I have?” Well, I don’t know, you haven’t provided anything yet, and mentioned in your other comment to me that you cannot say if they have written anything in regards to the Arctic’s melting Ice as the main climate driver.

            I do know that researchers and scientists from these organizations say that Thermohaline circulation and wind currents are the forces that drive the ocean currents, which is one of the major climate drivers.

            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/05conveyor2.html
            http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1347.full

          • Wallace Frantz

            The Arctic’s weather conditions, which are seriously altered by loss of perennial ice and a warming Arctic due to high levels of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 are the Driving force for the Thermohaline circulation and wind currents and global weather Cold Miser.

            Read the articles I posted links for and don’t cherry pick em apart.

          • Cold Miser

            No.
            1. I’ve already gave you evidence (two links) that scientists from NASA and NOAA show through peer-review that the global
            conveyor belt (ocean) is driven by Thermohaline circulation and wind
            currents. While the Arctic plays a role in this process, it’s not the
            main driver. NASA and NOAA have shown you to be incorrect that the Arctic drives Thermohaline circulations and wind currents. Here is more evidence that you are incorrect.
            A. “This difference in solar radiation creates
            a movement of air (wind) from the warmer tropical regions toward the
            cooler northern and southern regions, the poles.”
            http://utahscience.oremjr.alpine.k12.ut.us/sciber06/9th/stand_6/html/6_2c.htm
            B: “Winds Drive Surface Ocean Currents…. Global winds drag on the water’s surface, causing it to move and build up in the direction that the wind is blowing.”
            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/05currents3.html
            C: “There are five major ocean-wide gyres—the North Atlantic, South
            Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, and Indian Ocean gyres. Each
            is flanked by a strong and narrow “western boundary current,” and a
            weak and broad “eastern boundary current” (Ross, 1995).

            2. There is no direct evidence that increasing CO2, that lags temperature, is causing temperatures to rise. Correlation is not causation. Actually you can’t even call it correlation, since CO2 lags temps.
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379100001670
            The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka: Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by…

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5934/1551.abstract
            Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition:

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728.abstract
            Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III :
            The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

            I’ve read your articles Wallace. I’ve already stated that. Now, be courteous and read mine.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I have given excellent evidence that the Arctic’s climate conditions alter the ocean currents and global wind patterns and adversely effect the climate around the globe… Again, it is the Arctic’s climate which is the driving force for global climate.

          • Cold Miser

            You offered two articles, not peer-review, that does NOT say the Arctic drives climate. I offered about a dozen peer-review papers that says you are wrong.

          • Wallace Frantz

            A paper or an article does not have to be peer reviewed to be accurate .

            Btw, I posted links for at least 3 excellent articles here that show how the Arctic (*climate*) is the major driving force of global climate.

          • Cold Miser

            I’ve already explained why peer-review is preferred over your two articles. A reasonable person would understand this. “1. Published peer review is better than an article. This is just a
            summary without any attributions to who the authors were, rather, just a
            green group associated with The Arctic Council, another self appointed
            green group.”

            While not perfect, Scientific peer review is a quality-control system, where scientists open their research to the scrutiny of other experts in their field. Anyone can write an opinion piece in an article and claim anything they wish. A reasonable person would know the difference between propaganda and real research, especially when it comes to science.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Here’s one to start off with.

            http://www.greenfacts.org/en/arctic-climate-change/

            A quote from the article > quote > (“Changes in the Arctic will not only affect local people and ecosystems but also the rest of the world, because the Arctic plays a special role in global climate.”). < Unquote

          • Cold Miser

            1. Published peer review is better than an article. This is just a summary without any attributions to who the authors were, rather, just a green group associated with The Arctic Council, another self appointed green group.
            2. The article shows that changes in the Arctic can have an impact on earth, but that is not the same as what drives climate. Those are two very different things you are confusing.
            3. If you still think this article is evidence that the Arctic is the main climate driver, I can’t help you. And most likely you are beyond help.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Now why did I knw you would argue any article I posted links for and say they are not credible?

            You got some peer reviewed papers to show what is the driving force for global climate?

            Were the articles you linked Peer Reviewed papers??/ So long I won’t waste my time with you.

          • Cold Miser

            I take the time to read the two articles you link to, and you don’t even bother to clink on the link I provide you to even give a quick glance to confirm that yes, I did give you peer-review. Sorry, I’m not going to follow you down your rat hole.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I read every word of every article you posted a link for. I didn’t disagree with any of what they stated.

            Your false contention they show what I wrote in reply to BBQman and you was not correct is your flawed contention and typical AGW denier blathering.

          • Cold Miser

            This is what you said to BBQman that grabbed my attention:
            “CO2??? __ The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally BBman.

            When
            the Arctic loses it’s ice as it is doing, the global climate is
            adversely effected, as has been occurring during the past few years.”
            Do you wish to change your mind now that you read “every article” I posted? Which by the way, many were peer review, are you sure you read every one?

          • Wallace Frantz

            Npe… You wrote some of what I posted but left out the first one where I stated to BBQman, whom you have been speaking for, that the Arcic’s climate is the driving force for global climate. Which is correct.

          • Cold Miser

            No, I’m not speaking for BBQman, I don’t know what he is saying about the Arctic being a climate driver or not. That’s why I asked you to support your claim with peer-review. Which I haven’t received. I got 2 articles from you that do not support the Arctic climate is the main climate driver on earth. I gave you plenty of opportunity to support this claim, and you have failed miserably. Instead you falsely accused me of lying and then insulted me.
            Have a Merry Christmas Wallace. Believe what you believe.

          • Wallace Frantz

            There are no peer review papers I am aware of on the web that say that…. What I furnished should be good enough for a sensible honest person to accept.

          • Cold Miser

            “There are no peer review papers I am aware of on the web that say that.”
            Exactly. Because there isn’t any scientific evidence that supports what you claim.
            A sensible honest person would be inclined to follow the published science, not green groups who post unsupported propaganda pieces.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Hey wacko. I said I do not know of any peer reviewed papers that state that… I never have seen any that say that, just a lot of science articles where scientists have said it.

            That in no way means there aren’t any peer reviewed papers that say it. I just haven’t seen any.

          • Cold Miser

            As I said, you cannot support your made up claim that the Arctic climate is the main driver of global climate.

          • Wallace Frantz

            (“Changes in the Arctic will not only affect local people and ecosystems but also the rest of the world, because the Arctic plays a special role in global climate.”). What does that paragraph (“THE REST OF THE WORLD”) mean to you? Read the other articles. This one was to help you understand how important the Arctic ice is to not melt away.

          • Cold Miser

            Wallace, I did read your two links, and you couldn’t even give me the courtesy to see if I provided you a peer-review. Alas, my last comment I just made to you will be in vain, since I gave you several additional links to peer-review papers showing the real climate drivers. I don’t hold much hope. You misrepresented your two articles, I can’t imagine you will even comprehend accurately the peer-review I provided.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote, > (“since I gave you several additional links to peer-review papers showing the real climate drivers”)…. You are a liar Cold miser.

          • Cold Miser

            NO. You are lying, and creating another rat hole for me to follow you down.
            Here is the original comment made 18 hours ago, with the links I was referring too. Did you read them yet?
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/massive_fracture_in_antarctic_ice_shelf_is_70_miles_long_a_football_field_wide_and_a_third_of_a_mile/#comment-3066942045

            Here is the second comment with 5 more peer-review of main climate drivers. This comment was made 10 hours ago. Did you read all 5 Wallace?
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/massive_fracture_in_antarctic_ice_shelf_is_70_miles_long_a_football_field_wide_and_a_third_of_a_mile/#comment-3067297400

            Here is another comment 10 hours ago with 2 more articles/peer-review about Thermohaline circulation and wind currents. Did you read those too?
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/massive_fracture_in_antarctic_ice_shelf_is_70_miles_long_a_football_field_wide_and_a_third_of_a_mile/#comment-3067297378

          • Wallace Frantz

            Again, those changes like the global climate changes are due to the changed Arctic’s climate which was changed due to
            AGW….. Dam, you are thick in the head.

          • BBQman

            Seek help!

          • Wallace Frantz

            Keep talking to yourself, after awhile it might work. Give the shrink copies of all of your posted comments.

          • BBQman
          • Wallace Frantz
          • BBQman

            How touching!

          • Wallace Frantz

            LOL!!

          • Cold Miser

            No. I’m not thick headed. I just understand what the science says, unlike you. It doesn’t say that the Arctic climate and melting ice is driving climate. The melting ice is a feedback of the real climate drivers. The actual real climate drives are variations in Solar received, earth’s axis/position, Thermohaline circulations and wind currents which are known as forcings. The Arctic climate is a feedback from these forcings. You have offered nothing substantial to say otherwise. While I have provided about a dozen peer review papers that says you’re wrong.

            Look Wallace, I could care less that your opinion is not supported by scientific evidence. Telling me I must believe you is hogwash.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Cold Miser ….You again wrote > (” It doesn’t say that the Arctic climate and melting ice is driving climate.”)… Again no one said the melting
            Arctic ice is the driving force for global climate… You just continue to prove that you are a liar to continue to say that, over and over trying to prove your false agenda…

          • Cold Miser

            YOU: “It is a well and long known scientific fact that the climate of the Arctic is the driving force for global climate. /////”
            “Howsomeever…. The Arctic Region’s climate has always been the (driving force) for global climate. The loss of the Arctic’s perennial ice has caused a major impact upon global climate.”
            The only liar here is you Wallace.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Read all of the long written other articles and you will come to this sentence. > This sinking motion in the Arctic is a driving force behind the “global conveyor belt,” and the climate all around the world…

          • Cold Miser

            Well, the global conveyor belt is the ocean, Wallace. As I mentioned before, scientists from NASA and NOAA show through peer-review that the global conveyor belt (ocean) is driven by Thermohaline circulation and wind currents. While the Arctic plays a role in this process, it’s not the main driver.
            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/05conveyor2.html
            http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1347.full

            But Wallace, really, it’s your opinion, believe what you want, even though it’s incorrect. I’m not going to continue to chase you down your rat hole.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Hey CM, I am very familiar with the
            ocean “Conveyor Belt”…. The Arctic weather is the driving force of the Thermohaline circulation and wind currents, primarily the Jet Stream and all climate conditions around the globe. You may deny that just as you deny AGW and the loss of Arctic ice are serious issues.

            You wish to show that what I wrote in reply to BBQman’s request of me is wrong… That support of other AW deniers by you and Ecohawk is understandable, but you are still wrong.

            Where in those articles you linked does it state the ocean currents and wind patterns are the driving force for climate around the world? No place..

            What do several comments say from the articles I posted about the Arctic climate controlling weather conditions all around the globe?

            Btw; are those next two article you linked Peer reviewed papers like the first two articles you linked? Stuff it Cold Miser.

            Go sit and pamper BBQman, Ecohawk and your other AGW denier buddies and tell them all, “Merry Christmas”. Of course you AGW deniers are insuring the 6th mass extinction will occur. “Drill baby drill and burn that CLEAN coal” And your type say we are “pitiful”….

          • Cold Miser

            I’ve already offered you quite a few peer-review on the main drivers of climate and what drives Thermohaline circulation and wind currents. It’s not the Arctic as you claim.

            I see that instead of admitting to your mistake, you engage in personal
            attack and insults, evidence that you lack any valid argument.

          • Wallace Frantz

            No the peer reviewed articles you posted about changes of ocean and wind currents are not the MAIN drivers of global climate.

            Those changes are the result of the Arctic’s climate which causes those changes of ocean and wind currents. The Arctic climate is the driving force for global climate.., REPEAT… The Arctic’s climate is the driving force for global climate… Let that sink in..

            Btw,,, Dec 23, 2016….. Today the temperature at the North Pole is 32 degrees,,,, instead of the normal minus -20 degrees below zero.

            That is because of an atmospheric CO2 level of at least 401ppm because of AGW and an atmospheric CH4 level over the Arctic of over 2,000ppb. That is all because of AGW.

            Oh, this link is for a news item today and is not peer reviewed… It is accurate though.

            http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/the-north-pole-just-hit-32-degrees-it-should-be-minus-20/vi-BBxv6se?ocid=spartandhp

          • Cold Miser

            You didn’t read the peer-review I provided. They say what the main drivers of climate are. And it’s not the Arctic. The Arctic climate is NOT THE driving force for global climate. You have provided nothing that says this. I have provided peer-review that refutes this. I have provided peer-review which shows what the main drivers are.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Oh I did read them and you are a liar… The altered ocean currents and wind patterns are due to the dramatic change of the Arctic climate during the past 30 years. That is well accepted science.

          • Cold Miser

            Only one lying here is you Wallace, about reading the peer-review and what they say, and don’t say.
            As I pointed out in one of your other multiple nonsense replies to me, you couldn’t have read them all. Some are behind paywalls.

          • Cold Miser

            Oh look, more lies from you. Don’t you know when to stop? You’re an embarrassment to yourself. Do you just make up your own “science”?

            On Dec. 23, 2016 the Actual Temp. at the North Pole was: High 10°F – Low 5°F.
            NOT 32°F as you claim.
            The history average is High 3°F Low -13°F. NOT -20°F as you claim.
            http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/north-pole-ak/99705/december-weather/336714

          • Wallace Frantz

            So the MSN news article I posted a link for about the North Pole was near 32 degrees F and 50 degrees above normal is a lie….

            That “lie ” was published in hundreds of newspapers around the world, shown on every TV News channel and the TV weather channels and on several news articles on the web.

            So where have I lied?

          • Wallace Frantz
          • Cold Miser

            You fail at quote-mining too. Some of those links aren’t even from the right year.
            It also shows that you fail at relaying information correctly, or get your news from very unreliable sources that are inaccurate or exaggerate.
            Two of the links are duplicates.
            One of the links is from 2015.
            The Times claims what temps. COULD reach. Then says this: “Fluctuations in temperature are actually not uncommon in the Arctic”.
            One is a blog.
            And MSN (which is MSNBC) has one of the lowest accuracy ratings out the networks.
            “Right now, you can look at the MSNBC file,
            which also includes NBC, and see how that network’s pundits and on-air
            talent stand. For instance, currently 45 percent of the claims we’ve
            checked from NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.” according to PolitiFact.
            All these articles are incorrect. Here is the actual temperatures measured. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/427c34b9f6e5c4a938e249e551297ce12c61cef01882bcd1735adb670cc1704b.png

          • Wallace Frantz

            The near 32 degrees F at the North Pole was from a temperature buoy in the water at the North pole….

            It was all over the news, a news article I posted a link for. You are crazy CM and everyone here can see it. …. Rave on.

          • Cold Miser

            Perfect example of how you distort information.

            1. The buoy was 90 miles away from the north pole. It wasn’t the North Pole as you claim. Get your facts straight. You can’t even cite “sources” from the current year.

            2. It is normal for the Arctic to have large temperature swings. The news you cited reported it as an anomaly. It isn’t. Zachary Labe, Arctic researcher says: “The variability in the Arctic is tremendous. It usually does bring in brief periods of very warm weather [compared to normal].”
            Wikipedia: “Average January temperatures range from about −34 °C to 0 °C (−40 to +32 °F)”
            According to Wikipedia, even in January, it’s normal for the arctic to hit 32°F.
            Peer-Review research shows that it is common for the Arctic to experience several large warming trends every decade. Polyakov et al 2002: “Arctic variability is dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations.”
            It is normal for parts of the Arctic (Southern Norwegian and Bering Seas) to remain Ice free throughout winter.

            3. The news you cited was inaccurately false about what the average temperature is for the Arctic at this time of year. It claimed the average in Dec. was -20°F. Untrue and exaggerated.
            According to Accuweather, the Historic Average High is between 3 to 5°F and the Historic Average low is -10 to -15°F, or a mean monthly average of -2°F. That’s a far cry from -20°F.

            4. When you are armed with facts, not propaganda, you can tell who’s the lying gullible fool and who’s not. The gullible liar here would be you and your “news source”.

            5. If your definition of “crazy” is being armed with facts, not propaganda, then guilty as charged.

          • evenminded

            The Arctic is a large region. 90 miles from the North Pole is a smaller area.

            If you look at NP7-8 the average December temperature is in the -30C range which is ~-20F.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic#/media/File:ArcticStationClimatologies.png

            As far as getting facts straight, perhaps you should take your own advice. Your Accuweather information is for North Pole, Alaska.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            You are quite the hypocrite given that you are a proven liar. I guess you just slink away when you realize you’re caught instead of admitting your lies.

          • evenminded

            Do you understand that you gave a link to North Pole, Alaska?

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote again > (“I’ve already offered you quite a few peer-review on the main drivers of climate and what drives Thermohaline circulation and wind currents. It’s not the Arctic as you claim.”)..

            We have ben over that several times… No the Arctic doesn’t do that.. The Arctic CLIMATE is the driving force for climate and changes of ocean currents and wind patters globally.

          • Cold Miser

            Again, more proof that you lie and did not read any of the peer-review I gave you.
            Additionally, you just contradicted yourself in this comment.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Again you are proving you have a very serious reading comprehension disability.

            Another thing is you continue to say I haven’t read the papers you have cited…. Yes I have nitwit…. I read every single one of them…. So? They don’t say what you are claiming about the issue.

            What you have also proven is you don’t know how to reason things out…. Why did the world’s ocean currents and wind current change in such a dramatic manner during the past few years? What caused that to happen?

            Those changes have adversely altered the global climate but are not the driving force that altered the global climate… Why did they chage, what caused it to happen?

          • Cold Miser

            Oh sure, you read the ones behind paywalls… /s. Reading the summary does not count. Next you’re going to tell me you’re a scientist and have free access to published peer-review. You are a complete liar Wallace.

            Sorry, I don’t read doomsday propaganda like you do about dramatically changing ocean currents and wind current. I’m sure you are going to make up your own science about that too. Just like the Arctic is the driver of climate.

            Do you know what scientists say about the ocean circulation? Dr David Thornalley, Cardiff School of Earth and Ocean Sciences states: “Whilst the circulation of the modern ocean is probably much more stable than it was at the end of the last Ice Age, and therefore much less likely to undergo such dramatic changes, it is important that we keep developing our understanding of the climate system and how it responds when given a push.”

            However, If you are referring to the slow down of the North Atlantic ocean circulation that has been happening over the past century, oceanographers LuAnne Thompson and Kathryn Kelly, says its associated with currents off the tip of the African continent, or rather, the Southern Hemisphere. “That study showed that the MHT anomalies are meridionally coherent and suggested a southern source.” – Kelly et al 2016
            Whilst the circulation
            of the modern ocean is probably much more stable than it was at the end
            of the last Ice Age, and therefore much less likely to undergo such
            dramatic changes, it is important that we keep developing our
            understanding of the climate system and how it responds when given a
            push.”

            Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-01-ocean-circulation-revealed.html#jCp

          • Wallace Frantz

            Your one “peer reviewed” article concerns the orbit of Earth around the sun and how that alters climate…. It has nothing at all to do with a high atmospheric CO2 level, a melting Arctic, world oceans and wind currents changing.

            Your second “peer reviewed” article is about the brightness of the sun, etc. . Your third “peer reviewed” article is about Solar Irradiance Variability….. The forth is about ocean current changes, etc… Those changes were caused by the changed Arctic climate.

          • Cold Miser

            As I said, you lied about reading those peer-review articles. I gave you more than four. If you were to actually have read them, you would see that I provided evidence of the real climate drivers. Those were just a small sampling. There are numerous scientists with thousands of peer-review that show the sun/earth/orbit/axis are the main climate drives of earth and is well established in the scientific community. None of them claim that the Arctic Climate is the main driver of climate.

          • Wallace Frantz

            LOL… You keep sayin I didn’t read the articles you linked…. You are nuts… I read all of them and none address the issue of the reasons for record setting global climate changes. The Arctic’s climate is the driving force for climate around the globe.

          • Cold Miser

            Wallace, you are a bold face liar.
            1. Some of the peer-review I provided you are behind paywalls. I know you did not pay to read them.
            2. I know you lied about reading them since you responded in less than an hour after I linked 5 sources, 3 of them peer-review. Together they were over 20 pages long. No one can read scientific papers that fast. NO ONE. Including you.
            3. The peer-review I provided show what the primary climate drivers are, and it’s not the Arctic climate.
            4. You failed to support your claim that The Arctic’s climate is the main driver of climate.
            5. You admitted you couldn’t support your claim since you couldn’t find any peer-review that supports what you claim.
            6. You couldn’t find any peer-review because non exist. No scientists supports the claim that the Arctic Climate is the main driver of climate.
            7. You are moving the goal-posts/being dishonest by changing your wording: “none address the issue of the primary reason for record setting global climate changes”. We were never discussing “record setting global climate changes”.

            The only one that is nuts here (and a bold face liar) is you!

          • Wallace Frantz

            You wrote > (” I know you lied about reading them since you responded in less than an hour after I linked 5 sources.”).. That is not true… I didn’t reply to that for at least 24 hours.

            Again you post links for articles that have nothing at all to do with the current global warming and record setting global climate changes.

            You have also posted links for good articles that state the changing ocean currents and altered global wind patterns have a serious effect on global climate… That is true.

            I have posted links for articles where scientists say the Arctic’s climate alters ocean currents and global wind patterns and the result are record setting global climate changes.

            The Arctic climate does the things you are saying are the primary cause of global climate changes. That has been pointed out to you several times over the past few days and you cannot fathom it…

            Instead of learning you just continually say I am lying and so on…. Why should I bother wasting my time lying to a clown like you?

          • Cold Miser

            Wallace, I have caught you is no many lies, you can’t keep up with them.
            I have proof that your reply where you claim to have read the 5 papers was less than an hour after I posted those 5 papers. So you are lying about that too.

            Here’s were I responded pointing out you couldn’t have read them since you responded within an hour of the post.
            http://disq.us/p/1eqmd4f

            I posted my comment with the papers at 1:10 pm, Saturday Dec 24. You posted your reply at 2 p.m., Saturday Dec 24., less than one hour after I made that comment, and only 4 minutes after your last response to me which was: “I am very tired of your replies to me and my replies to you…”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7cad293a949e89d60d8bd4d1c38ff31646168785d7e4df33b2519e4434bd7ae2.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1f173015353053e74358e7677327f034588c1fd6413bad05fc4cff2391aef54c.png

          • Wallace Frantz

            You went to a lot of trouble writing that bunch of lies…. Those replies I posted to you on Saturday were not to the comment you posted with 5 links.

            Just read what you wrote and you referred to 2 linked articles.

            You are a very deceitful and sick in the brain person… You are not sane Cold Miser. Your continual posting on this subject and thread with the same over and over BS is nuts. You honestly do need mental health assistance.

          • Cold Miser

            Oh, poor Wallace. Caught red handed in a major lie, and now you try to weasel out of it by more insults and lies.

            ‘To hide a lie, a thousand lies are needed.’I proved it was your response to the comment with the 5 articles. It’s in the screen capture. Notice the first 4 sentences that your comment was in reply to.
            Now here is the screen capture of the whole comment made 6 days ago with the links to the 5 papers.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/952dd5f556ba68e0a75f50b58b20401722a8d2ac9ded88b14037b4bf0d0ccb43.png

            I go to great lengths to tell the truth. And you go to such great lengths to cover up your lies.

          • Wallace Frantz

            You really are crazy Cold Miser.

          • Cold Miser

            Is this all the liar can do? Call the truth “crazy”? Resorting to insults just shows how guilty you are of lying.

          • evenminded

            I go to great lengths to tell the truth.

            LOL

            You just tell lies on top of your lies.

            You’re quite the hypocrite.

          • http://pislamonauseacentral.tumblr.com/ *✿*Blueburb*✿*
          • Cold Miser

            Merry Christmas Blueburb!

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

            Thank You!

          • Wallace Frantz

            Here’s another one to study… It’s 4 years old but backs up what I wrote.. Excellent scientific information.

            Quotes from the article > quotes > (“Arctic sea ice is an important component of the global climate system.

            The polar ice caps help to regulate global temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. White snow and ice at the poles reflects sunlight, but dark ocean absorbs it.

            Replacing bright sea ice with dark ocean is a recipe for more and faster global warming. The Autumn air temperature over the Arctic has increased by 4 – 6°F in the past decade, and we could already be seeing the impacts of this warming in the mid-latitudes, by an increase in extreme weather events.

            Another non-trivial impact of the absence of sea ice is increased melting in Greenland. We already saw an unprecedented melting event in Greenland this year, and as warming continues, the likelihood of these events increase.

            The impacts of an ice-free Arctic are far-reaching, and could be a trigger for abrupt, cataclysmic climate change in the future.

            Although it is difficult to see exactly how sea ice decline will impact the local and global environment, basic understanding of the Arctic as well as recent observations give us a good idea of how things might change.”) < unquotes

            https://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp?MR=1

          • Cold Miser

            1. This article also does not support or claim that the Arctic is the main climate driver. It says ice can help regulate temperature by reflecting sunlight, but nowhere does it say that it is the main driver of climate…. nowhere!
            2. It says the melting ice is a feedback of a warming earth, not a forcing.
            3. It speculates what kind of impact an Ice Free Arctic could have on the environment and the weather, but not that it would drive climate.
            4. This is not a peer-review published paper.
            5. If you also think this article is evidence that the Arctic is the
            main climate driver, I can’t help you. And most likely you are beyond
            help and reason.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Do you wish to cherry pick any other comments from the article… How about the one I cherry picked for you from that article.

            Oh, I do believe I poste three articles and that one I thought you would find to be educational as to why I understand the melting Arctic ice is so important.

            I was wrong,,, you just wish to deny the Arctic climate is the driving force for global climate… As it stated in that article and the others and hundreds of others I haven’t posted for you.

            Read em all

          • Cold Miser

            Nowhere in the article says or claims that Arctic melting Ice is earth’s main climate driver. You are conflating main climate driver with global effects. They are two different things. If you can’t distinguish the difference between the two, forcing and feedback, then you are a lost cause.

            By the way, I only saw two links, not 3. You really have major comprehension issues if that is your take on these articles. Neither article says the Arctic climate or Arctic melting ice is the driving force for global climate. No cherry picking necessary.

            I’ve already pointed out several comments ago what most scientists consider the major driver of climate. The sun, position of earth, the ocean, etc. These are well known, well accepted, and well documented in thousands of published papers.
            http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/E1406.abstract
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5546/1431.2.summary
            Solanki et al. (2013) Solar Irradiance Variability and Climate
            http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141007
            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6194/322
            “giant “whirlpools” in the ocean, up to 500 kilometres across, are driving the world’s climate on a scale previously unimagined.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Cold Miser, you wrote, > (“Nowhere in the article says or claims that Arctic melting Ice is earth’s main climate driver.”)…..

            That is correct CM and I have never said it was….. Read what I wrote and don’t put words in that I never said.

          • Cold Miser

            Well, why would you waste my time, when that’s exactly what you said, and now lie about it…..
            “CO2??? __ The climate of the Arctic Region drives the climate globally BBman.
            When
            the Arctic loses it’s ice as it is doing, the global climate is
            adversely effected, as has been occurring during the past few years.”

          • Wallace Frantz

            I am very tied of your replies to me and my replies to you with the same irrational arguments you raised a long time ago… Are you paid by the number of replies you receive?

          • Cold Miser

            No. I’m not paid. It’s actually you, who has created multiple replies (I think about 6) to my one original response to you. I should ask you the same. Your pattern of behavior lends this to be more plausible than mine.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I replies to all of your replies wacko and you initiated this sorry but discussion …. Bye- bye. Don’t fall over a cliff or get hit in the head by a bolt of lightening.

          • Cold Miser

            While I can remain respectful, you resort to calling me names and imply I should meet a horrific and painful death in a sarcastic way.
            This shows who the true “wacko” is that lacks any valid argument.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Names? Yes… You are an idiot, a foolish and stupid idiot. So? The truth is the truth fool.

            Btw, I didn’t suggest anything bad happen to your dumbazz. I said, “don’t let”…… Of course you know it was not serious speak anyway…. So try and make a big deal of it,… F/Off Cold Miser.

          • Cold Miser

            Oh, look. More insults, because you lack any valid argument.

          • Wallace Frantz

            What you wrote about Dr. John Tyndall is not true… You took some of his words (*out of context*) to prove your flawed AGW denial points.

          • Cold Miser

            How did I miss this comment? Perhaps because you branched off over 6 individual comments to respond to my one comment to you?

            Regardless, what I wrote about Tyndall is absolutely true. The only one lying here is you.

            Tyndall concluded that water vapour was the strongest absorber of
            radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
            temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but
            relatively small.
            http://www.liquisearch.com/john_tyndall/main_scientific_work

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

            http://archives.library.wcsu.edu/omeka/items/show/2533

            All you have are lies and generic false rhetoric.
            You can’t even answer my question on why the IPCC needs water vapor for CO2 to be a “climate driver”.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Those things you just posted about Tyndall are not the things you lied about him several days ago.

          • Cold Miser

            More lies from you Wallace.
            Copied from my comment 6 days ago, pasted here today.
            “Yes, Tyndall was right….. when he concluded that water vapour was the
            strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the
            principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases
            is not negligible but relatively small. That’s what Tyndall concluded
            over 100 years ago.”
            Here’s the screen shot in my comment feed: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cea3c10cd5fd2ad59d0c35a0b65c85f01e57ad236b7ed5c672ac41236c2c527d.png

            Copied from my comment 5 hours ago, where you replied, “Those things you just posted about Tyndall are not the things you lied about him several days ago.”

            “Tyndall concluded that water vapour was the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

          • Wallace Frantz

            I have never conversed with a ROO2, so again you are making up stories about me. What is wrong with you BBQman?

        • Paul

          These folks also do not understand the concept of displacement. Only ice melting off of land creates sea level rise. The portion of ice above water when floating still displaces the amount of water it contains. Otherwise, melting north polar ice would cause the sea level to fall, not rise. :-) Fresh water is less dense than salt water but it would take a huge amount for noticeable sea level rise. The average depth of the oceans is around 10,000 feet. That’s a lot of salt water to dilute.

          • BBQman

            It boggles the mind as to how many quantifiables they leave out of their equations.

          • evenminded

            Only ice melting off of land creates sea level rise.

            You should try learning about thermal expansion. However, it is true that the loss of land ice is what is most concerning for large changes in sea level.

          • Paul

            “You should try learning about thermal expansion.”

          • evenminded

            Is the concept foreign to you?

            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

          • Paul

            Not at all.
            And you?

          • evenminded

            Isn’t the answer to that obvious?

          • Paul

            Yes it is.
            You have no practical ability to understand the technical information you cut and paste as “Proof” of your opinions. Pretty clear actually.

          • evenminded

            Anyone that is scientifically competent understands the idea of displacement Paul. The question is why you thought mentioning the tiny halosteric component of sea level rise while ignoring the more substantial thermostatic component is what’s at issue.

            Thermal expansion is not a difficult concept Paul. Given that about 20% (feel free to make that more precise if you like) of the recent sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, your statement that “only ice off of land causes sea level rise” is not quite right.

          • Paul

            The argument for AGW panic reduces to opinions driving some people to scream “fire” in a crowded theater when the complexity of homeostatic systems is reduced to simplistic projections of woefully insufficient data and artful but technically correct modeling of that data to reach preconceived conclusions.

            You use other’s opinions of the meaning of the data to support your opinion. I get that. Your defense is your opinion that those supporting your opinion with their opinions are more “scientifically competent” and “Understanding” than those who disagree with your opinion. Merely an appeal to popularity driving a circular argument. All you need do is to restrict the time frame of effects centered around data that supports your opinion. You see a correlation with some observations that are not proven to be related, let alone causative. Nature is a complex system with a delightful ability to surprise us when we feel sufficient unto the task of practically understanding that complexity,

            Now you construct a strawman of my post, claiming it says something it did not. The flaw in your reasoning is that you have faith that pack ice melting increases the temperature of the oceans and thereby causes a volumetric expansion of the oceans IN TOTO. In some regions it does the opposite when it does not raise the temperature of the surrounding water past the magic 4deg C point. Water has a regime of negative thermal coefficient of thermal expansion that is not accounted for as your data looks at gross “averaged” impact from a projection of effect from cherry-picked data collection and analysis. In my opinion you do not have a clue as to whether these changes will result in higher or lower sea levels. I doubt if our opinions will ever align and the worth of that if they should magically do so. All you have is coincidental observations of effects you believe to be self supporting.

          • evenminded

            That’s a nice word salad Paul.

            The discussion here is on your erroneous statement that only ice melt from land causes sea level rise. If you now wish to distance yourself from that incorrect statement, then that is progress.

            I never claimed that ice pack melting causes an increase in temperature of the oceans. I simply pointed out that thermal expansion is another mechanism that causes sea levels to rise.

            Water has a regime of negative thermal coefficient of thermal expansion that is not accounted for as your data looks at gross “averaged” impact from a projection of effect from cherry-picked data collection and analysis.

            That’s a nice mixture of a scientific fact along with an evidence-free claim.

            You’re simply another scientifically illiterate ignoramus that tries to spruce up their bu11sh1t with a smattering of loosely related scientific facts that do nothing to refute the actual science. You and BBQman are two peas in a pod.

          • BBQman

            Well stated!

          • Echohawk

            A lot of that going on lately

          • evenminded

            Yes, that’s all BBQman ever does. He spouts nonsense that he has no understanding of like, “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”, and all of you other deniers lap it up.

            Why don’t you ask him what centripetal acceleration is and how to calculate it?

          • Echohawk

            Calculus is not a difficult math and it was taught when I went to school in Jr high now I think they teach it in grade 11 or 12 . It’s just a question of remembering the formulas .
            Quote
            Centripetal Acceleration. Consider an object moving in a circle of radius r with constant angular velocity. The tangential speed is constant, but the direction of the tangential velocity vector changes as the object rotates.
            Unquote
            http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node6.html

            Are you sure he or who he might be quoting has not factored this in ?

            Quote
            What is centripetal acceleration?

            Can an object accelerate if it’s moving with constant speed? Yup! Many people find this counter-intuitive at first because they forget that changes in the direction of motion of an object—even if the object is maintaining a constant speed—still count as acceleration.
            Acceleration is a change in velocity, either in its magnitude—i.e., speed—or in its direction, or both. In uniform circular motion, the direction of the velocity changes constantly, so there is always an associated acceleration, even though the speed might be constant. You experience this acceleration yourself when you turn a corner in your car—if you hold the wheel steady during a turn and move at constant speed, you are in uniform circular motion. What you notice is a sideways acceleration because you and the car are changing direction. The sharper the curve and the greater your speed, the more noticeable this acceleration will become. In this section we’ll examine the direction and magnitude of that acceleration.

            https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/centripetal-force-and-gravitation/centripetal-acceleration-tutoria/a/what-is-centripetal-acceleration

            Here is the visual of centripetal acceleration formula
            https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/centripetal-force-and-gravitation/centripetal-acceleration-tutoria/v/visual-understanding-of-centripetal-acceleration-formula

          • evenminded

            Do you have reading comprehension problems?

            Why don’t you ask BBQman what centripetal acceleration is?

            If you think that all he will do is copy and paste from some website, then why don’t you ask him how it applies to his ridiculous statements about the planet’s core?

            Given that you think I am quizzing you, why don’t you explain why it’s ridiculous to claim “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”?

          • Echohawk

            Lol my reading comprehension is excellent , but it would appear my subtleness and good manners are beyond yours 😈

          • evenminded

            You’re a joke Echohawk. You think calculus is about remembering formulas, but it’s not. If you actually understood calculus then you wouldn’t have to look up what centripetal acceleration is. You could derive it from fundamentals.

            If you actually understood science, then you could explain why “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” is an utterly ridiculous statement.

          • Echohawk

            What I am seeing here is your crave for validation through negative behaviour of insulting or denigrations of others , in the hopes that all that read your comments will be cowed compliant ( impressed ? ) by this self projected image you have of yourself as being omnipotent .
            It’s why most won’t converse with you because everything with you is a knife fight .
            A wiser person would understand why I posted the explanation of caf but again I will give you an opportunity to think of positive reasons of why I did .
            I am here in many regards to help people broaden their knowledge base and understanding it’s why I started the Think Tank Report channel so literally everything I do online points towards these goals and often I am successful depending on the person .
            It is unlikely anyone will learn much from you for a host of reasons , number one being you don’t explain yourself in the exactness that you expect from others but rather deflect with negative behaviour .

            P.S. All math is formula based even 1+1= 2 is a formula

          • evenminded

            I am here in many regards to help people broaden their knowledge base and understanding

            Why don’t you start with BBQman? Explain to him why “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” is an utterly ridiculous statement.”

            P.S. Your comprehension of math is that of a novice.

          • Echohawk

            Considering my comments you have no idea what level any of my comprehensions are at because you are too busy delving into character denigrations and breaking civil discourse guidelines .
            And what have you exhibited of your knowledge base ?
            Nothing , other than you have a rude mouth and a high opinion of yourself .
            Hypocrisy at its finest lol

          • evenminded

            Considering your comments, I certainly do have an excellent idea of what your level of competence is. You just made novice statements on mechanics that demonstrate that you don’t actually understand what you are talking about.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Wow… Tha tis near word for word a reply I made to Echohawk yesterday…. She finally banned me, at my request, and has barred Starfire… No decent person would bar Starfire….. She is, was now a closet AGW denier… She has totally outed herself here on this thread… And you have her pegged too… BBQman is a crazy person trying to be a good AGW denier…. He is a bad joke.

          • The End of The Error
          • BBQman

            LOL!..

          • The End of The Error

            Regressives think that one word constitutes an entire argument. That’s why I love slapping them in the face with their foolishness.

          • Wallace Frantz

            I did not know until yesterday that you were a closet AGW denier Echohawk…. I cannot tell you how pleased I am to see you showing yourself here on this thread for what you actually are..

            Btw, you arguing with evenminded is laughable… You are outnumbered 100 to 1 in math and common sense…. Run off with your real friends Echohawk.

          • Paul

            The planet does not merely rotate, it wobbles with a frequency unrelated to solar orbit. This can make the angle of incidence of sunlight vary in places on long time frames as the two effects combine out of phase.

          • evenminded

            Are you too much of a moron to understand the magnitude of the claim that is being made?

            No need to answer, obviously you are.

          • Paul

            Eco has you pegged. Your ignorance is bracketed by your need to insult. It is an indicator of the location of your deficiency. You might as well draw a map. I guess it gives you time to google up a plausible response.

          • evenminded

            I have no problem insulting scientifically illiterate morons like you. It’s fun pointing out your ignorance, so please continue.

          • Paul

            Ok. No problem.

          • evenminded

            Are you going to continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of mechanics? Or will it be more fun on your ignorance of the relative magnitudes of the wobbles and changes in tilt of the Earth’s axis?

          • Echohawk

            Ohh godly one why do you mock us so with your magnificent omnipotence , please have pity on us poor peasants of the science world and enlighten and awes us with posting of your research papers or reports of findings 😈

          • evenminded

            If you can’t understand why it’s ridiculous to claim that the Earth’s tilt will reverse course and change as much in 30 years as it usually does in 6000 years then you have little hope in understanding the scientific content of any research.

          • Echohawk

            Rotfl , the only one here that seems lacking ,,,, of a few things is you my dear .
            Anyways I must go and bake pasteries and more cookies as I have a family filled with members that all have a serious sweet tooth .
            Merry Christmas 🌺

          • evenminded

            Are you laughing because you’ve realized just how ridiculous the claim you are supporting is?

            If someone in your family actually understand math or science, then find them and ask them for some lessons.

          • Echohawk

            Ohh no , I am laughing with the joy and anticipation to be soon wowed by your posting some of your indepth research papers or report of findings that would contribute to this discussion or even a mere hypothesis of yours described in exact language concerning the current climate changes we are seeing .

          • evenminded

            Why would I waste my time attempting to explain climate change to someone as mathematically incompetent and scientifically illiterate as you?

          • Echohawk

            So you just came into this discussion to insult people without backing it up or adding any new information ?
            I can see why your comments get deleted and you banned from channels , because that’s extremely trollish behaviour designed to deflect from the topic at hand and impede anyone from actually having and enjoyable intellectual based discussion .
            You fill the page with baseless insults , I wonder if I block you I can just see the comments that are intelligent ? 🌺
            Bye bye trollie

          • evenminded

            No, I came to point out that BBQman makes one ridiculous claim after another and deniers come in droves to support his nonsense.

            Perhaps if there was an honest skeptic around then there could be an interesting discussion. But such an honest skeptic would point out that BBQman is in fact full of you know what. If you were intellectually honest then you would admit that your scientific competence is rather insignificant in comparison to that of the scientists that actually produce the peer-reviewed research on climate change.

          • Mensch59

            But, but, but @Echohawk:disqus can cherry pick sciencey stuff like the best of the pseudo-literate. She’s obviously a competent learner unaffected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.
            /s

          • BBQman

            Excellent information Echohawk, thank you for sharing!

          • Echohawk

            Most welcome 😊🌺😊

          • evenminded

            Have you asked yourself yet why this would be new information for him?

          • Wallace Frantz

            After 13 hours Echohawk has not replied to your fair question, but she is on other threads supporting other AGW deniers…. Echohawk is a MOD with her own science website and swears she is not a GW deniers… LOL>>> She just hangs out and supports AGW deniers..

            If you ever get on one of her articles and get into an argument with a AGW denier or her,,, expect to be permanently barred for writing personal insults.

          • evenminded

            If you ever get on one of her articles and get into an argument with a AGW denier or her,,, expect to be permanently barred for writing personal insults.

            Yep, that’s already happened to me.

            Glad to hear that you are doing well after your surgery. I hope you are having a happy holiday season.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Thank you EM and the very best to you too.

          • BBQman

            I recommend you, Wallace and you’re other romper room friends stop playing that criminal “smusher crew” game, stop insulting people and then just maybe, you won’t have to spend as much time in prison.

          • evenminded

            Prison?

            LOL. Thank you for the Christmas gifts BBQ. I wonder if you’ll have more for me tomorrow.

          • BBQman

            It’s for your own good evenminded, deception about CO2 has its penalties.

          • evenminded

            If it’s a crime to spread lies on DISQUS, then you are a fugitive from the law. Go turn yourself in, or stop lying.

          • Paul McCormick

            Try on angular momentum and precession of a spinning object, it is the stuff our tilt is base on, Milutin Milankovitch explained it and it has stood the test of time and empirical measurement to this day. BBQ has it right.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            You think that BBQman’s claim that the tilt of the Earth’s axis will increase by 0.7 degrees in the next 30 years is right?

            Are you willing to take a wager on this?

          • Paul McCormick

            The Obliquity Cycle (Axial Tilt)
            The Axial Tilt, or obliquity, varies to the plane of the Earth’s orbit. This tilt, typically around 23 1/2 degrees can vary between 22 and 24 1/2 degrees. That means it can change up to 2.5 degrees over a period of 41,000 years. Increased obliquity can cause summers to be warmer and winters to be colder.
            So when our orbit is elliptical and our northern hemisphere, which is mostly land mass is tilted toward the sun, we can melt our way out of an ice age pretty fast in fact it only takes a few thousand years. As we attain a more circular orbit and the combined effects of the tilt and wobble work together in their natural cycles the Earth has a chance to cool again and we go back into an ice age.
            Inversely, decreased obliquity can cause cooler summers that in combination with other factors can help push the climate system into ice ages, when the this cycle is favorable for that condition.
            We are currently in a decreasing phase, which under normal circumstances, without the excess GHG’s, would cool the climate system.
            The Precession Cycle (Wobble)
            Next is precession, or wobble. This cycle occurs every 26,000 years. This gyroscopic wobble of the earths axis is driven by tidal forces which are influenced by our sun and moon. The Earth is actually not perfectly round so the gravitational pull tugs the axis over time creating the wobble cycle. Now there’s a technical term for you.
            This wobble can cause a difference in the types of seasons one polar hemisphere will experience over the other. The hemisphere at perihelion (closest to the sun) will enjoy an increase in summer solar radiation but a cooler winter, while the opposite hemisphere will have a warmer winter and a cooler summer.
            Currently the southern hemisphere is at perihelion, so they are enjoying warmer summers, but cooler winters, which likely contributes to snowfall in the hemisphere.

          • evenminded

            Get a clue Paul. BBQ is claiming that the tilt is going to reverse course (since it is currently decreasing) and increase by 0.7 degrees in 30 years.

            Why don’t you run some numbers and get back to me when you finally realize just how ridiculous his claim is?

          • Paul McCormick

            https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Chandler+Wobble&&view=detail&mid=357F79CA30CF71B65F0E357F79CA30CF71B65F0E&FORM=VRDGAR
            AW a wobble of +.7 degrees will occur in 27 years according to your ice melt fellows, so you are WRONG! now own it and apologize you are WRONG.

          • evenminded

            WTF are you talking about Paul?

            The first web link associated with your search states that the wobble amounts to 9 meters at the North Pole. Given that the earth’s radius is 6,371,000 meters, that amounts to an angle of 0.00008 degrees.

            Who is claiming a +0.7 degree angle change and in what paper?

            What is it with you and lying about facts?

          • Paul

            Cool stuff! Thanks.

            But I imagine that the observed effects lag the stimulus. I have no idea how to calculate that lag but it would be interesting to know. The earth is a huge mass even if you only consider the part of it from a few feet below the surface up to the upper atmosphere. I can’t conceive of it registering a response instantaneous with the stimulus. I guess one could graph the net effect of orbital and angular variance against ice-age cycles and look for an out of phase relationship. If it was small, it might not be detectable from the quality of data generated for past measurements.

          • Paul McCormick

            It is small in arc seconds tilt and milliseconds of increased rotation there are small variations but there is some profound changes which result from them over time, none of which we can do a thing about.

          • Paul

            I don’t see why I would be concerned with doing anything about it :-) I have more than enough windmills to tilt at. I just get so frustrated with the AGW folks thinking that the earth responds in a contemporary way to causes on a human time scale.

            For me, there is one irrefutable proof that must be present to determine cause and effect. Effect must lag cause and not be coincident with it in time or precede it. This lag will be a product of the magnitude of the effect relative to the “capacitance” of the body affected. All of these claims of a history of measurements are but a tiny eye-blink on the timescale that must prevail.

            This lag is all around us and drives our observations. The summer solstice is in June but the warmest months are August and September. And there is a massive differential in heat absorption between winter and summer. The difference these people say they are expertly interpreting and attributing is orders of magnitude smaller for the same body and would suggest a lag orders of magnitude longer. I just have a very hard time taking their science seriously.

            I can admit that they could have guessed right, the chance is there but they cannot consider that their conclusions might be wrong or based on observations of effects originating centuries in the past and manifesting now. It just doesn’t pass a smell test.

          • Paul McCormick

            It is in agreement we are! Yoda

          • evenminded

            Of course we can’t do anything about it Paul. What we can do is base our statements in reality. Do you realize yet that BBQman’s claim that an increase in tilt of 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years is nonsense?

          • Paul McCormick

            I would believe it as a units observation problem, it happens to many.
            It is a common error and not meant to deceive, and after making a concerted effort to bone up on the issue I made the same error, arc seconds are more realistic in the overall view but scan reading may let the mind put things into known units degrees instead of the actual units presented, you see what you expect to see.

          • evenminded

            But yet again, the difference between you and BBQman, is that he will never admit his error.

          • Paul McCormick

            Oh, You keep making it a matter of saving face and ego driven and what you get is what you are.
            Errors even compounded with verbal attacks, you are ungracious of people which make errors, Liar/Stupid/Imbecile etcetera, you still have not, nor ever will take my advice.
            Sublimation is still expressed in science and was not left out after man figured out how to achieve the proper conditions to hold CO2 in a liquid state, It is still a real thing at STP.

          • evenminded

            It’s not a matter of saving face at all. Though given your recent glee when you thought you “got me”, clearly that is what it is for you. For me it’s a matter of respecting the truth. The deniers that I call names have zero respect for the truth. BBQman is the worst offender because he doesn’t even care what the truth is, and he will never admit his errors.

            As for CO2 solidifying out of the atmosphere at SP at -110F, it won’t because the partial pressure of CO2 in air is far too low. I’ve pointed this out already. BBQman’s claim that CO2 “degrades” in the upper atmosphere because it will solidify out of the atmosphere at -110F is just as ridiculous as his claim that the tilt of the earth’s axis will change by 0.7 degrees in 30 years. He couldn’t care less how ridiculous his claims are. It makes me wonder if you will ever realize that he is taking you on a fact-free ride.

          • Paul McCormick

            It was an honest units error, that is all.
            Now don’t go making it a federal case.

          • evenminded

            For you perhaps, but I don’t think that’s the case for BBQ. He doesn’t care if his statements have any scientific backing. I’ve pointed out to him many times that the last time the tilt was 0.7 degrees greater than it is today was about 6000 years ago.

          • Paul McCormick

            Yes, true. The anomaly of the wobble is however causing quite a stir in the geophysical camp.

          • evenminded

            It’s causing a stir because if the WAIS is lost it may cause some interesting dynamics of the spin. But I don’t think that even that can cause a 0.7 degree change. Though I am willing to be corrected if the mechanics shows otherwise. I don’t think most people understand just how large a 0.7 degree change in 30 years is.

            The other point of note is that you, or perhaps it is the links that you found on the matter, claim that an increase in the tilt will cause warming, while BBQman claimed that this increase will cause cooling.

          • Paul McCormick

            There are statements both ways , the wobble having 472 day cycles and variability’s in both direction over time, so it isn’t out of the realm of causing both , just as one stated the present anomaly is not readily understood and the changes are yet to be seen, the we will know it when we see it .

          • evenminded

            The wobble is tiny. I was referring to something of the 0.7 degree magnitude.

          • Paul McCormick

            Tiny yes, that is what is significant it has increased substantially and it appears to continue into 2016 how much is still open but it is definitely changing eve visibly to my telescope’s alignment on the polar axis.

          • Paul McCormick

            .7 is not a large portion of 360 either. but 7-9 arc seconds is quite large in the short time frame of only 14 months(aprox.)

          • evenminded

            You’re spinning like a top now. 0.7 degrees is a large fraction of the range for the obliquity.

          • Paul McCormick

            It is truly a matter of time, 26000 year cycle vs the 472 day cycle the total variability of 2.7 degrees over that time is miniscule compared to 7-9 arc second in the very much shorter time reference.

          • evenminded

            WTF are you talking about Paul? 7-9 arc seconds << 2.7 degrees.

            The claim that was made was that the tilt was going to change by 0.7 degrees over 30 years.

            If you recognize that this is ridiculous, then we are on the same page.

          • Paul McCormick

            I have moved on apparently you can’t.

          • evenminded

            You’re the one that keeps discussing it Paul.

          • Paul McCormick

            Back to that tact are we ,Good bye then, go enjoy the family.

          • evenminded

            What tact Paul?

            Are you living in the same reality that I am?

          • Paul McCormick

            Apparently we perceive it from entirely different perspectives.

          • evenminded

            That’s why it’s good to have math and logic at our disposal. The numbers don’t lie.

          • Paul McCormick

            But liars do USE numbers to lie with. Data manipulations are statistics and if the person doing the manipulation can be nefarious.

          • evenminded

            These are the numbers Paul. If you think these are lies, then please explain why.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt#/media/File:Obliquity_of_the_ecliptic_laskar.PNG

          • Paul McCormick

            Nope.

          • evenminded

            Nope, you don’t think they are lies, or nope you are not going to explain why you think they are lies?

          • Paul McCormick

            That particular set of data points are accurate.

          • DeplorableghostofThomasPaine2

            Merry Christmas Paul, hope you have a blessed day and a happy new year.

          • Paul McCormick

            I have had and thank you, I hope yours was as good as it should have been.
            Paul

          • DeplorableghostofThomasPaine2

            I ate too much, but other than that it’s been great. Thanks.

          • Paul McCormick

            Good chow, good people, good times!

          • evenminded

            Good. So we agree that the last time the tilt was 0.7 degrees higher than today was about 6000 years ago, and we should expect it to continue decreasing at a bit faster than that rate over the next 30 years.

            Merry Christmas.

          • BBQman

            You are forever lost in the minutia of data manipulation to perpetuate a false premise, and will never see the big picture, can you show me where it has been proven with absolute certainty, that at no times during the last 6,000 years, the earth has not strayed from these patterns?

            The problem is you can’t, CO2 only drives 0.000001% of our climate, the facts don’t lie.

          • evenminded

            These patterns are reliably predicted based on fundamental science. A topic that you have no understanding of.

            Go back and finish your high school degree BBQ.

          • BBQman

            “Reliably predicted” is not proof, it’s not even science.

          • evenminded

            Yes BBQman, it is science. It is based on the well-established laws of mechanics.

            Go back to high school and finish what you started.

          • BBQman

            No evenminded it is not science to assume the last 6000 years of orbital tilts and eccentricities stayed in an uninterrupted pattern. Are you really that naïve?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1f8d55d697b73fa08ae84476a11e85bc111fd5bccca0ab1119e0f4d25ec0d8bd.png

          • evenminded

            It is science if that is what the known laws of mechanics tell us. Perhaps you also think that the Earth and Mars will switch orbits next year.

            I guess for someone as scientifically illiterate as you, anything is possible.

            Go back and finish high school BBQman.

          • BBQman

            Stop going off topic you idiot

          • evenminded

            LOL

            The topic is the science of the obliquity of the ecliptic. Even Paul has come to terms with the fact that the last time it was 0.7 degrees larger was 6000 years ago.

            Seriously, go back to high school and finish what you started.

          • Shad_ow

            It’s not even “reliable.”

          • BBQman

            Seek help, you have anger issues.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Paul has come to terms with the fact that your claim about the earth’s tilt was ridiculous. Have you?

          • BBQman

            Evenminded, I have proven you to be a fraud and a most evil person, I can only hope that you and your “smusher crew” get brought up on Rico charges soon, may you spend many wonderful days in prison, you are a fraud and a plague on humankind.

            “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 CO2 RAT HOLES.

            CO2 is not our primary climate driver evenminded, please get that into your thick skull.

          • evenminded

            You haven’t proven anything other than that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus.

            Eventually people like Paul, that do have a shred of intellectual honesty, will tire of finding out that your claims always lack a scientific basis and they will stop supporting you.

            Progress was made today. Paul has realized that your claim that the tilt of the earth’s axis will increase by 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years is nonsense.

            Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that you were wrong, or are you simply going to continue to spread your lies?

          • BBQman

            Sorry sweetie, you can’t make up your own facts, just wait till Scott Pruitt takes over at the EPA, and Rick Perry at Energy, and another great pick by Trump is Rex Tillerson, for Secretary of State, all three of those men are closer to my positions then they are to yours, but you are a criminal after all.
            No doubt you will fade away like the unsubstantiated diatribe you spew, goodbye idiotminded.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/857bd3e9cb4081da5cd97ce87530c6648e497cec038564a9b984572f02e0b92c.gif

          • evenminded

            I don’t make up any facts. That’s your realm.

            Paul has now realized that your claim that the tilt of the earth’s axis will increase by 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years is nonsense.

            Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that you were wrong, or are you simply going to continue to spread your lies?

          • BBQman

            You are a Liar evenminded, go away.

          • evenminded

            The liar here is you.

            Your claim that the tilt of the earth’s axis will increase by 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years is nonsense.

            Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that you were wrong, or are you simply going to continue to spread your lies?

          • BBQman

            No, my claim is that CO2 after 345 ppm only drives 0.000001% of the climate.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Now you want to change the subject to another claim that has no scientific basis.

            Why can’t you stop lying?

            Your claim that the tilt of the earth’s axis will increase by 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years is nonsense.

            Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that you were wrong, or are you simply going to continue to spread your lies?

          • BBQman

            I already admitted that my 0.7 could be off a bit, we will keep an eye on it for the next 30 years, to see where it actually ended up. Maybe you will have finished serving your prison term and be out by then.

          • evenminded

            It’s off by orders of magnitude.

            Paul has realized that fact. Why can’t you admit that you are wrong?

          • BBQman

            When are you going to admit that after 345 ppm, CO2 only drives 0.000001% of the climate?

          • evenminded

            Yet another claim that is not backed by science.

            Do you think Paul buys this one, or does he realize that you are always making just one ridiculous claim after another?

            Paul has realized that your last claim is ridiculous and has no backing in science. Why can’t you admit that you are wrong?

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            LOL

            It’s always a blast to see you raise the white flag.

          • Paul McCormick

            Actually 9000+ years ago.

          • evenminded
          • Paul

            I haven’t checked is math but It seems in the general range to me.

          • evenminded

            Why don’t you check the math and get back to us?

          • Paul

            Why would I do that if I was uninterested in the result? Either you are right, or BBQman is right or neither of you is. The answer isn’t pertinent to anything I have commented on. You dug her up, you shoot her.

          • evenminded

            If you were interested in not making ridiculous statements then you would have already realized that he is most certainly not in the right general range. He is not even in the right direction.

            You continue to prove that you are a scientific ignoramus.

          • Paul McCormick

            Obliquity: The angle of the Earth’s axial tilt with respect to the plane of its orbit, called the obliquity, varies between 22.1° and 24.5° in a roughly periodic way, with a period of 41,000 years. When the obliquity is high, the strength of seasonal variations is stronger.
            Right now the obliquity is 23.44°, roughly halfway between its extreme values. It is decreasing, and will reach its minimum value around the year 10,000 CE.
            Precession: The slow turning in the direction of the Earth’s axis of rotation relative to the fixed stars, called precession, has a period of roughly 26,000 years. As precession occurs, the seasons drift in and out of phase with the perihelion and aphelion of the Earth’s orbit.
            Right now the perihelion occurs during the southern hemisphere’s summer, while the aphelion is reached during the southern winter. This tends to make the southern hemisphere seasons more extreme than the northern hemisphere seasons.
            The gradual precession of the Earth is not due to the same physical mechanism as the wobbling of the top. That wobbling does occur, but it has a period of only 427 days. The 26,000-year precession is due to tidal interactions between the Earth, Sun and Moon

          • Paul

            I am accelerating in my chair at 32ft/sec^2 but that is canceled by the chair exerting a countervailing force equivalent to my mass upon me. If I magically stopped accelerating, the chair would launch me out of it and into the ceiling. There are two important factors to always keep in mind; F=ma and don’t try to push a rope. This acceleration can be observed all around us in daily mundane things like the whirlpool that forms when you pull the sink plug or a tornado. The tangential velocity varies with latitude, this can make things appear to curve when they are not, the local frame of reference is changing.

          • evenminded

            I am accelerating in my chair at 32ft/sec^2

            No, relative to a frame attached to the earth you are not accelerating in your chair at 32ft/sec^2 unless you are currently in a free-fall.

            The earth is placing a force equal to your weight towards its center (approximately), and the chair is placing a force equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. Hence you have zero acceleration with respect to the reference frame in question.

            You don’t actually understand mechanics, but it’s amusing that you like to pretend that you do.

          • Paul

            Your response is always rage inspired. I wonder why that is so? It seems to have unhinged you as I will not respond in kind and give you the responsive contempt you crave. To continue with this elitist scorn of the pseudo intellectual, you err while pointing out another’s error. You compose “word salad” to label another’s thoughts as word salad.

            You have no existence absent the presence of a self perceived enemy. I wonder what soul shredding tragedy made you so. But I don’t wonder for long. I imagine it is some pedestrian slight you have clutched to your bosom.

            You have been driven to err. F=ma. What does “a” represent? how can the “F” exist without it? Go away hateful one, there is no value in interaction with you. You are dismissed.

          • evenminded

            F is the sum of the forces acting on you, you scientifically illiterate ignoramus.

            F is a vector sum of all of the forces acting on you. Do you know what a vector is and how to perform a vector sum?

            Your acceleration a as measured in a frame attached to the earth is zero as you are sitting in your chair in your living room. The sum of the forces on you is zero. The earth pulls you downward with a force equal in magnitude to your weight, and the chair (and the ground if your feet are resting on the ground) push you upward with a force equal in magnitude to your weight. The vector sum of these forces is zero.

            You continue to prove that you are clueless when it comes to mechanics. My Christmas gifts just keep on coming. What do you have for me next?

          • Paul

            Nothing.

          • evenminded

            Yes, you have nothing. No understanding of basic mechanics.

            Do you even understand what a vector is?

          • Paul

            You confuse mass with weight. You have merely buried “a” within it.
            You confuse acceleration with velocity and a local change in it. The force accelerating my azz towards my chair was derived from gravitational acceleration one instant and became the result of something else the moment of chair/azz coincidence? This is a whimsically magical world you describe. But it has utility for you, it is a vehicle for your scorn and contempt for others. Nice of nature to provide you with that bounty. You have no useful or PRACTICAL understanding of the subjects you have memorized. Pity.

          • evenminded

            No, I do not confuse mass with weight. The forces that the earth and the chair impart upon you are equivalent in magnitude to your weight at the location that you are sitting.

            Your azz is not accelerating with respect to a frame attached to the surface of the earth. The forces due to the earth on you is derived from Newton’s law of gravitation, i.e. F = G m1 m2 / r12, where G is the universal gravitation constant, m1 and m2 are your mass and the mass of the earth, and r12 is the distance between your center of mass and that of the earth.

            Acceleration is a fundamental kinematic concept. It is equal to the rate of change of your velocity, which in turn is equal to the rate of change of your position. If you are sitting stationary in your chair for a finite interval of time then the rate of change of your position is zero during that interval and the rate of change of your velocity is zero for that interval. Hence your acceleration is zero during that interval.

            I’m sure this is all above your head.

          • Paul

            Now you bury it in G. It just won’t go away.

          • evenminded

            Bury what in G. Newton’s law of gravitation determines the force that is applied between masses. It’s similar to Coulomb’s law for the force between charges.

            This is basic mechanics. You don’t really understand the difference between kinematics and kinetics do you?

            Here, try this.

            If from 7:00 am until 8:00 am this morning Paul was sitting in his chair, what were his velocity and his acceleration relative to a reference frame fixed the the surface of the earth during that time interval?

          • Echohawk

            It’s actually surprising how many things seem counter initiative with math .
            Example the weight of an object when measured at different elevations , most people would automatically assume that regardless of where a person or object is they should weigh the same but they will weigh lighter at higher elevations .
            But weight is a gravitional force that is reduced at higher elevations

          • Paul

            Inverse of Distance^2.

          • Wallace Frantz

            Excellent support of BBQman’s unscientific nonsense comments of the “tilt” of the Earth by 7 degrees in the next 30 years as if that will change the global climate with an atmospheric CO2 level which would be near 500ppm at today’s annual increase.

            You did good supporting one of he most ignorant AGW deniers on the web Echohawk… Well done. Bravo!!!

          • Paul

            Yup.

          • Paul

            You haven’t figured out the flaw in this posting as support of your suppositions yet, have you? Hint: The “when” of your graphs measurements are contemporary. What is the “when” of the driving effects that caused them? Are they all of the same time constant? The thermal mass of an ocean is quite a large thing and in constant and changing motion. You are not seeing proof of causation in your observation of effect data, you are seeing the summation of many causes with varied time constants.

            I do not know but my suspicion is that many of those contributors are decades, if not centuries in the past as you sample the time stream flowing past your measuring devices. How long does it take for a packet of water to complete the circuit of the thermal conveyor? Your measurements are woefully inadequate for your conclusions.

          • evenminded

            What arguments do you think I have made Paul? My only “argument” is quite simple and fundamental. Sea level change has a thermostatic component. There is not rally any argument against that fact. If you want to argue whether or not the recent thermometric component is ~20% then feel free to provide the data that supports your correction.

          • Paul

            If that is all you are saying then we have no disagreement. I thought you were saying that this obvious little tidbit was in support of it being of anthropogenic causation. That is the part that falls apart. The conclusion drawn, not the science of. We do not have different science for different opinions.

          • evenminded

            The thermosteric component of sea level change is due to the increased heat content of the oceans. You do agree that there has been an increase in the heat content of the oceans recently, no?

            You just don’t agree with the assessment of the experts that indicate that this recent warming is most likely due to anthropogenic causes. Given that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus, that is not a surprise.

          • Steveglen

            That is funny but insightful, Paul. I have never for a moment considered that there are people who don’t understand the relationship between ice and water:-)

          • evenminded

            Anyone with fundamental scientific training understands the relationship between ice and water.

            Scientifically illiterate ignoramuses make statements like, “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”, and other morons upvote it.

          • BBQman

            You can’t prove me wrong, so you resort to insults…..pity.

          • evenminded

            In 30 years you will be proven wrong. Just like back in October you were proven wrong about your ridiculous earthquake claims.

          • BBQman

            Sorry evenminded, but an earthquake did occur in the region I stated, on the day I selected, and earthquakes have picked up in severity ever since.

            The climate will change, and man has very little to do with it, maybe 0.000001%

          • evenminded

            Yes, we know that earthquakes occur in CA and Mexico every day. Your claim of unusual seismic activity was wrong and you’re too much of a dishonest twit to acknowledge that fact.

            Why don’t you explain to your friends why you think the Earth’s tilt will reverse course and change as much in 30 years as it usually does in 6000 years?

          • BBQman

            I have already, read my other posts, and have a Merry Christmas evenminded!

          • evenminded

            LOL

            That fact that you or anyone else thinks you have explained why you think the Earth’s tilt will reverse course and change as much in 30 years as it usually does in 6000 years is laughable given the fact that you can’t even approximate the forces required to produce such a change to the motion of the Earth.

            Why are you such a liar?

          • BBQman

            Does this mean you’re not going to wish me a Merry Christmas?

          • evenminded

            Merry Christmas BBQman.

            Now it’s time to get right with your god and ask for forgiveness for lying so much.

          • BBQman

            And a happy new year evenminded!
            http://youtu.be/gyffz_yqY9E

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Merry Christmas to me.

            Thank you for proving that you and Paul are scientifically illiterate ignoramuses.

          • BBQman

            One can not learn if they refuse to see, also note the date on the video, my observations predate it by several years.

          • evenminded

            You observations? LOL

            Do you have any idea what science is?

          • BBQman

            Do you have a clue what critical thinking is?

          • evenminded

            Certainly, critical thinking is what allows me to know that a change in the tilt of the earth’s axis of 0.7 degrees over 30 years is enormous.

            Critical thinking is what allows me to know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • BBQman

            You have a closed mind and hate filled heart, you don’t know anything about climate drivers, but you got the hate down pretty good. Wake up soon, or you won’t be advanced to the next dimension of knowledge…..last call!

          • evenminded

            I know that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus that regularly tells lies and is too dishonest to admit his errors.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            You are obviously obtuse.

            Do you have any idea how large a 0.7 degree change in tilt over 30 years is?

            Obviously not.

            You don’t even realize that none of these videos supports your ridiculous claim.

          • BBQman

            Of course I could be off a bit on the .7 degrees, it’s very difficult to calculate electromagnetic forces , their convolutions and the many other anomalies and quantifiables that must be accounted for.
            I am not prefect you know.

          • evenminded

            You are off more than a bit. You are off by orders of magnitude.

            Furthermore, you have no idea how to calculate EM forces, let alone determine how they affect the tilt of the earth’s axis.

          • BBQman

            It’s always been my intention to show the many actual drivers that control our climate, it was necessary because people like you have immersed yourself in nothing but CO2, it’s a big mistake to think of a trace gas, which only makes up 0.04% of all atmospheric gases could ever influence our climate after 345 ppm. CO2 is 1/500th of water vapor, and after reviewing the absorption properties of both, it is clear that as a climate driver, CO2 is only around 1/5000th of water vapor. CO2 only impacts the climate after 345 ppm around 0.000001%.

          • evenminded

            Your intentions are irrelevant.

            What you have shown is that you have no understanding of basic math and science. You have also shown that you are an intellectually dishonest liar.

          • Paul McCormick

            Nice vid. never says how much of a axis change but interesting none the less.

          • BBQman

            You can lead the settled science guys to knowledge, but you can’t make them think.

            I never did see the one that said that out of the group you sent, what was it called?

          • Paul McCormick
          • BBQman

            It seems certain that our climate changes as a result of these anomalies.

          • Paul McCormick

            No matter how I try the system won’t take me to the place I mark, it is blasted frustrating!

          • BBQman

            I will try again.:)

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            You didn’t read the whole article did you.

          • Paul

            Actually, I did. It was quite interesting.

    • DeplorableghostofThomasPaine2

      Merry Christmas BBQ, Happy new years and God bless.

    • The1TruthSpeaker

      You still haven’t answered the question.

      • Wallace Frantz

        And he never will…. BBman does not answer fair questions…. It is against their rules.

  • Echohawk

    Here is a link that talks about the Emperor Penguin colony on that shelf and of course the affects this is going to have on the glaciers in that region . ( video )
    https://iceandicing.wordpress.com/tag/ice-shelf/

  • Tom Yulsman

    Mr. McCormick: Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and expletives. You get just warning.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+