Climate Change

The ice isn't IN the water. It's on top of a continent. Maybe it was once in the water, but it hasn't been in a long time.

There is much reason to be concerned about the yearly decreases in ice sheet loss in the northern hemisphere. Sea ice is what's really holding back the land glaciers / ice sheets from melting more rapidly. Firstly, their melting still brings colder water into the North Atlantic, forming a blanket of cold water that disrupts ocean circulation.

Secondly, glaciers and ice sheets in greenland / antarctica are thought to rapidly increase their melting once the sea ice extent is reduced to a minimum. Too much net loss of ice in summer due to abnormally high arctic temperatures, and not enough precipitation in greenland to keep up with the losses, so there is a net loss each year of land ice.

Watch this video by James Hansen on a recent paper he did studying a variety of impacts of climate change on the North Atlantic, with paleoclimatic evidence:
youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8&feature=youtu.be

Also, here's a link to the actual study itself, it is quite long, so the video is a better summary of the ideas unless you have a few hours to read through this:
columbia.edu/~jeh1/2015/20150704_IceMelt.pdf

>With the current technology--NO
>maybe a form of population control from famine.

Only if we can stop AND reserve global warming.

>but people even state that with the arctic circle
Greenland also has a glacier.

>why do people pretend that it would cover homes?

They aren't pretending. It would take at least 5000 years to melt all the ice.

There is enough ice on land at the south pole that melting it all would raise the sea level by over 200 feet.

nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

yes it happens every year, it's called seasons.

>its the 50th "keep pretending climate science is real" thread on Veeky Forums
look at the catalog before you post and please keep your delusion and politicized scams into one containment thread people

when did people become so gullible that they fall for the scientific dogma this easily?

Not on a human timescale

>yes it happens every year, it's called seasons.

wew lad

No, this is the first, "Hey here is a picture from NASA that shows that climate change is actually real," thread

And, if people don't think climate change is real, I think it would be very interesting to hear their explanations of why so much ice would just disappear like that.

Why don't we just...
a. refill the Aral Sea with sea water
b. dump a bunch of sea water in the middle of the desert and places that are in drought i.e. Ethiopia
c. launch a giant ice block of sea water at Mars in order to make it more livable (if we're on target)
then we'd have much more space

The question is less about is climate change reversible but rather what will the world be like and how can we possibly adjust

Not unless you want to wipe out ~75% of the world. And even then it'd be tough, firebombing China alone would be worse than a century of continued industrial activity at the current rate of expansion. I actually read an article claiming that much of the unusual weather phenomena being attributed to climate change generally were caused specifically by aerosols released in China.

Thanks! This is very interesting to read.

What season is it currently in the Northern hemisphere? Sea ice has had net losses each year for decades.

Melting all the ice doesn't even matter. You only need to decrease the sea ice enough to induce rapid melting of the glaciers, and thus have meters of SLR by the end of the century, essentially forcing mass migration from vulnerable coastal cities like Miami if sea walls, dikes, etc. aren't built.

this is literally the least likely option. US is on it's way but if you think China or India are just going to stop, you're delusional.

China is already slowing down their reliance on petroleum usage, and is investing heavily into solar. China has the fastest growing renewable industry in the world. Also, we in the US can't really talk shit about China considering per capita, we use far more fossil fuels than China or India, only the oil-producing arab countries having higher emissions per capita.

do you actually know facts behind any of those arbitrary claims you just made?
(you don't, it was rhetorical)

closeminded posts like this should be a bannable offense

China is the largest producer of solar

The man made pictures of OP are clearly not supposed to represent the ice sheet from the same period of time, left one is winter, right one summer.

> Sea ice has had net losses each year for decades.
You are just vomiting what you heard on fake news, without checking the single fact about it.
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

only the oil-producing arab countries having higher emissions per capita.
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.tot
China leads in emissions, but you have to look at the fact that the US population is 1/4th smaller than Chinas:
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.cap
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. all have higher per capita emissions than China.

>China is already slowing down their reliance on petroleum usage
> and is investing heavily into solar
reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-renewables-idUSKBN14P06P
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/energy-environment/china-coal.html

>China's solar capacity overtakes Germany in 2015, industry data show
reuters.com/article/china-solar-idUSL3N15533U

>You are just vomiting what you heard on fake news, without checking the single fact about it.
>nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
its things like this that make me feel truly sick

sick that the left will lie to back up their political views with fake science in an attempt to fearmonger the uneducated, all while claiming the right fearmongers about islamic terror

islamic terror kills innocent people every day and they don't even want to talk about it, climate change will never kill anyone because it's not even fucking real

China also can't strategically depend on oil like the US can since they don't control the oil market.

You're just vomitting things you read without understanding the context. There is a NET LOSS globally of sea and land ice.
Your own source debunks your own claim:
nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

Funny how NASA is "fake news" only when it doesn't confirm your biases.

As for your source, yes, no one disputes that ice is still building up in Antarctica, despite increasing losses each year.
>We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas

>The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.

Read your own damn sources.

>China's solar capacity overtakes Germany in 2015, industry data show
China is more than 20 times bigger than Germany ( in term of inhabitant), scale per capita, that mean China has less than 5% of the solar energy output of Germany.
China is also the fastest growing country in term of energy consumption, do the math.

Here is the accompanying description from the NASA images,

>The area covered by Arctic sea ice at least four years old has decreased from 718,000 square miles (1,860,000 square kilometers) in September 1984 to 42,000 square miles (110,000 square kilometers) in September 2016. Ice that has built up over the years tends to be thicker and less vulnerable to melting away than newer ice. In these visualizations of data from buoys, weather stations, satellites and computer models, the age of the ice is indicated by shades ranging from blue-gray for the youngest ice to white for the oldest.

>man-made pictures
>man-made climate change
I think I'm seeing a pattern here... I GOT IT! Just kill the fag who makes those pictures. Man-made climate change solved. You can send me my Nobel in the mail.

Here is the original article. It actually goes through some more before and after photographs and data,

houstonpress.com/news/nasa-releases-climate-change-images-as-trump-still-claims-it-doesnt-exist-9135052

Also, there is a net loss in land ice in Antarctica as well, despite increases in sea ice. Even with the increases in Antarctica sea ice, overall there is a net loss due to the amount of warming in the northern hemisphere.

Warming in the arctic is much higher than in Antarctica. While Eastern Antarctica is gaining ice, Western Antarctica is losing more than it gains.

livescience.com/52831-antarctica-gains-ice-but-still-warming.html

>The Antarctic is not warming as fast as the Arctic is, said Zwally, who led the NASA study. "It's more like the global change [rates]," Zwally said. In other words, the Antarctic region is seeing a regional temperature rise that matches the temperature rise seen on average around the world, instead of the much higher temperature rise in the Arctic regions noted by NOAA.
>Scientists think the Antarctic region is experiencing a slower temperature rise than the Arctic, because the ozone hole over Antarctic has created weather trends, specifically in East Antarctica, that has slowed it down.

Yet you do the same exact thing, you parrot things you read on WUWT or Climatedepot instead of actually reviewing the scientific literature:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170119143331.htm
science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276

It's funny how you are pointing to the NASA study as well, the authors of that study specifically stated that deniers like yourself would mis-interpret the results:
mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

>thus have meters of SLR by the end of the century

Climate change is real, it's cause by man and the effects are serious.

But extreme exaggeration like that is unhelpful.

For sea level to rise by even a single meter in the next hundred years the rate of rise would have have to triple.
I doubt the final disappearance of sea ice in the summer will speed things up that much.

You can build a sea wall easily within the time.

The countries really threatened are those with large areas of really low lying coastal farmland too large to defend.
They suffer badly from just a few feet.

Not him, but I think you need to search more

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

scientificamerican.com/article/why-china-is-dominating-the-solar-industry/

on geologic timescales yes

on human timescales no

>despite increases in sea ice.
I specifically answered to the proposition:
> Sea ice has had net losses each year for decades.
And proved it wrong by articulating my argument with a perfectly relevant source.
I hardly see how I misinterpreted the conclusion that the amount of see ice (not ice) is rising.

And just so you know, while land ice melting is indeed causing sea level to rise, see ice growing mean more sun reflection, wich has a GLOBAL COOLING effect.

We are talking about GLOBAL sea ice, that means the arctic AND Antarctica. The net losses come from the amount of ice melting off Greenland, and the net decreases in sea ice extend every year there, and the loss of ice thickness.

Look at this combined graph of sea ice decline. Gains in Antarctica are negated by the losses in the arctic.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246

>see ice growing mean more sun reflection, wich has a GLOBAL COOLING effect.
Yet you are wrong about this, as sea ice is decreasing, and thus ice albedo is also decreasing, meaning less reflectivity from sea ice each year. This is just one of the many positive feedback forcings from anthropogenic climate change:

You can also look at data from the NSIDC to see that there is a net sea ice loss:
nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

>For sea level to rise by even a single meter in the next hundred years the rate of rise would have have to triple.
>I doubt the final disappearance of sea ice in the summer will speed things up that much.
Hansen touches on this in the video I posted earlier in the thread. It's not entirely impossible to have a rapid increase in the rate of SLR over the next century, just highly unlikely with the 2C rise in temperature. We will see as we collect more and more data over the next few decades however.

Again, did a little more research into your claims and found this very recent article on ice albedo, titled
>Brief communication: Antarctic sea ice gain does not compensate for increased solar absorption from Arctic ice loss
the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2016-279/tc-2016-279.pdf

>the observed increase of sea ice extent in the Antarctic cannot compensate for the loss of Arctic sea ice in terms of the shortwave radiation budget in the polar oceans poleward of 50° latitude

What they are essentially saying, is that the amount of ice gained in Antarctica cannot compensate for the amount of albedo reduction from the loss of arctic sea ice. Any net gain of sea ice and albedo in Antarctica is not enough to cause more cooling in summers than the heating that is occurring due to sea ice loss in the arctic,.

>However, surface characteristics of Antarctic sea ice are less affected by global climate change (Allison et al., 1993;Brandt et al., 2005;Laine, 2008). Antarctic sea ice is mainly melting from below as the ice drifts away from the continent into warmer circumpolar waters, which is opposite to the surface melting induced by melt ponding on Artic sea ice. Therefore, sea-ice extent losses in the Arctic are most pronounced during the Northern 5 Hemisphere summer
>consistent long-term observational, satellite-based time series shows that changes in the bipolar shortwave energy budget caused by a decreasing Arctic sea ice cover are not balanced by the slight increases observed in Antarctic sea ice extent. Increases in Antarctic sea ice only occur during the Southern Hemisphere winter and thus have only a minor impact on the energy balance, while Arctic sea ice changes are accompanied by a spatially uniform decrease of sea-ice albedo, further increasing the energy input to the northern polar ocean and thereby strengthening the ice-albedo feedback.

You are aware of the difference between sea water and fresh water, are you not?

>not flat
it's photoshopped

Can't see anything spectacular. Antarctica land ice grows as usual and the long since promised ice-free Northern Passages still didn't materialize. Who needs sea ice anyway. Image shows Greenland in denial so far..

Standard tactic of climate deniers; post an unsourced graph and cherrypick the context.

Let me guess, you read this at realclimatescience. iceagenow, climatedepot or any of the numerous copy-pasted cherrypicking denial blogs?

First, let's find the actual source of your information, using google image search, and weeding through the denial blogs, I found this webpage, Global Cryosphere Watch.
globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/icesheets/

Which is further sourced from this (Danish?) source:
beta.dmi.dk/groenland/maalinger/indlandsisens-massebalance/

I'm guessing it's about mass balance in Greenland, showing an increase in some regions during winter, which to the surprise of no one, is not exactly shocking, especially since the mean is from 1990-2013. One year of a slightly increased ice deposition in some areas of Greenland, surprise, doesn't debunk anthropogenic climate change. You have to look at the entire trend, not just take one year out of context (especially considering we are going from El Nino to La Nina again).

Taking this as a "record breaking ice growth," well just look at the previous year on the graph you posted, 2015-2016. Indeed, during that time-frame it would have appeared to be a "record breaking" (under a very loose definition of the phrase) growth as well, yet looking at the entire trend is necessary. Perhaps actually wait until next august, when the series is finished to make any more assumptions. What happens when we have another "record low" ice growth like 2011-2012 on the graph? Will the denial blogs blog about that, or will they stay silent because it doesn't confirm their biases?

So basically, once again, deniers take a piece of scientific data, and cherrypick it to fit their cognative biases once again. Not really surprising.

Furthermore, I actually bothered to translate the Danish source, here's a direct quote from the article, translated through google translate:

>During the year it snows more than melts, but calving of icebergs included the also in the ice sheet total mass accounts. Satellite Observations over the past decade shows that the ice cap actually is not in balance. Calving excess surface mass balance and Greenland therefore lose mass by about 200 Gt / year.

So basically, this is not taking into account glacial calvings which when added into the accumulation of ice, leads to a net loss of 200 gigatons per year.

As for the image in my previous post, here is the translated text from below:
>Top: The total daily contribution to surface mass balance from the entire Greenland (blue line Gt / day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from 1 September to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red), which had particularly high melting on Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve (dark gray) from the period 1990-2013. The same calendar day of each of the 24 years (in the period 1990-2013) will have a different value. These differences from year to year is illustrated with the light gray band. Here, however each calendar omitted the lowest and highest value among the 24 years.

Your argument is essentially the same as Inhofe going into congress with a snowball and saying "Look, it's snowing in winter! Take that global warming!"

Go ahead, take this source:
beta.dmi.dk/groenland/maalinger/indlandsisens-massebalance/
If you have Chrome, you can auto translate the webpage into English. It helps to actually read the scientific source of your data, not secondhand blogs that cherrypick and misrepresent the information for their own gain and biases.

RIP /pol/tards

>"record breaking ice growth,"

...

I suggest you cease using "alternative fact" sources of information on climate change that routinely misrepresent the scientific evidence. Also, in general, snow is much more likely to accumulate... in winter. Shocking I know. Melting rates generally accelerate during the summer, which too I'm sure you find shocking. Let's say we even had one year in which there was a net gain in Greenland ice. Would it matter, if the trend continued and there were subsequent losses in the next decades? It would not alter the trend significantly.

As you can see, each winter correlates with a spike in the graph of ice accumulation, which is then offset by melting in the summer each year.

youtube.com/watch?v=G0rp6-BEur8
youtube.com/watch?v=Fw7GfNR5PLA
youtube.com/watch?v=ERLd15drxDA

Finding ways to cherrypick and misinterpret the data helps no one. You would do better to actually look at the sources of data yourself, you know, from entities like NOAA that actually collect it.

Further, here is some suggested reading to educate yourself on the topic.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104130436.htm
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2899.html

Who ever made this graph flunked statistics class. The y axis are measurements in standard deviations. Those values are DIFFERENT for the Artic and Antarctic. A less deceptive graph would show fluctuations of Global Sea Ice.

Pic related. Nothing to worry about.

>le everyone who disagrees with me is from pol
modsreally need to clean this board up

(OP)
>Who ever made this graph flunked statistics class. The y axis are measurements in standard deviations.

And there's a reason why Arctic Ice graphs start at 1979. They cherry picked a date of unusually high ice levels. Look at pic from an early UN IPCC report; they were more honest back then.

Why should we try?

>Finding ways to cherrypick and misinterpret the data helps no one.
I totally agree. And yet warmists do it all the time

Whoever made that graph (Monckton, so typical!)
Here's an actual rebuttal to that image though.
tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/deniers-worst-enemy/

The scale is poorly choosen on this graph, look at the Y-axis please and understand why, the data is so compressed that is is completely misrepresented. You do realize that each unit is 1 million square km, right? Of course if you stretch that from 0-24 it's going to be compressed.

It's not surprising that every image you post is backtraced to denial blogs. Every single one, maybe you're a little insulated as to where you get your scientific information from?

>And there's a reason why Arctic Ice graphs start at 1979. They cherry picked a date of unusually high ice levels.
No, the reason is because of satellite measurements of sea ice you dimwitted fuck, which began, surprise, IN 1979! It's almost as if satellites weren't capable of measuring arctic sea ice before 1979, because maybe they didn't fucking exist?

Oh wait, I thought you deniers loved satellite measurements? Wait, when they disagree with your biases, then you hate them, right?

It's so fucking clear that you don't even read the posts your replying to.

See:
youtube.com/watch?v=ERLd15drxDA

check date of images

>It's not surprising that every image you post is backtraced to denial blogs.
Genetic fallacy. Not an argument.

how could he, he can't even tie his shoelaces

>lrn2spell pol/tard

which word was mispelled?

>
>Whoever made that graph (Monckton, so typical!)
Idiot, it was created by Cryosphere Today. Irrelevant who used it.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

>
>It's not surprising that every image you post is backtraced to denial blogs. Every single one, maybe you're a little insulated as to where you get your scientific information from?
Maybe you can pretend that those graphs don't have a scientific source and pretend that the data was just made up. But you're just fooling your self.

Your Ad Hominem is pathetic.

>>And there's a reason why Arctic Ice graphs start at 1979. They cherry picked a date of unusually high ice levels.
>No, the reason is because of satellite measurements of sea ice you dimwitted fuck, which began, surprise, IN 1979! It's almost as if satellites weren't capable of measuring arctic sea ice before 1979, because maybe they didn't fucking exist?

You DUMBSHIT is a picture from Satellite Data!

You paid shills aren't even trying.

...

The consensus explanation is climate change.
But consensus is not Veeky Forums.

>I suggest you cease using "alternative fact"
Climate change is not a fact. If you call it fact don't whine if someone shoves "alternative facts" up in your ass.

>lrn2read pol/tard

Did you really need 3 replies to say the same exact thing?

All you can go back to is crying about ad hom, because I am attacking your shitty fucking sources, which are routinely debunked and criticized. They aren't peer-reviewed, they aren't scientific literature, they are just literal opinion pieces and shitposts from non-scientists who have no authority (inb4 muh appeal to authority) on matters of climate science.

>You paid shills aren't even trying.
Nice AD HOM. Don't play by your own rules do you? Anyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill!
Next thing you know you'll be calling me "CTR." Nice arguments pal.

Nothing you said here changes that the satellite record begins in 1979 for a specific reason.
Please see some actual, legitimate sources of information on sea ice and sea ice records:
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent
neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234
>Accelerated decline in the Arctic sea ice cover
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.419.8464&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>Acceleration in the decline is evident as the extent and area trends of the entire ice cover (seasonal and perennial ice) have shifted from about 2.2 and 3.0% per decade in 1979 – 1996 to about 10.1 and 10.7% per decade in the last 10
years. The latter trends are now comparable to the high negative trends of 10.2 and 11.4% per decade for the perennial ice extent and area, 1979 –2007.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice
>Useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in December 1972 with the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) instrument. However, this was not directly comparable with the later SMMR/SSMI, and so the practical record begins in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) satellite.,[5] and continues with the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSMI). Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) and Cryosat-2.

Yes. In a sense, we can reverse the damage we have done to the atmosphere (for some unknown reason we don't) but we can't change the heat cycles nor can we really stop the extra heating effect caused by us. We can only fix our mistakes and hope that it wasn't to late

>we can reverse
only to a point, around 450ppm / 2C

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m50s

> (You)
>Nothing you said here changes that the satellite record begins in 1979 for a specific reason.
>Please see some actual, legitimate sources of information on sea ice and sea ice records:
>nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent
>neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

> I got caught being stupid, that really is Satellite Data.
Idiot that data is from the NOAA! PIc related. It was published in an early IPCC report. And check the source, the data was obtained from satellite observations.

You're so desperate, you're calling the NOAA non-legitimate! You're tactic of ad hominem is pathetic. But that's all you've got, so I'm not really surprised.

Warmist edited wiki articles are Truth!
>>Useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in December 1972 with the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) instrument.

So we'll just pretend the NOAA didn't have any pre

>However, this was not directly comparable with the later SMMR/SSMI,
>we can't look at the two different scan types and compare.
What warmist shill tweaked this wiki article?

>So we'll just pretend the NOAA didn't have any pre 1979 data.

What's the worse that can happen? A meteor 6 miles across didn't end life on earth, nor did the previous mass extinction events.
A bunch of niggers and sandniggers will die in droughts? Fuck them.
Coastal cities will be under water? It will be a blessing, and I hope all the liberals drown with them.
A bunch of species will go extinct? Cry me a river. Ecological systems will find a new balance like they have being doing for billions of years.
Will humans survive all this worst case scenario? Maybe, and if they do, only the fittest. A humanity culling is past due anyway.

>Next thing you know you'll be calling me "CTR."
nah, just a nerd virgin.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice
>>Useful satellite data concerning sea ice began in December 1972 with the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) instrument. However, this was not directly comparable with the later SMMR/SSMI, and so the practical record begins in late 1978 with the launch of NASA’s Scanning Multichannel

And yet the NOAA had access to the same data type or a way to compare different data types all along Its almost as if a warmist edited that Wiki article to protect later IPCC cherry-picking.

every time

Throwing legitimate science journals and sources at scientifically illiterate deniers is trying to teach a dog how to read. You'll get nowhere.

Again, 4 replies (now 5!), are you new to Veeky Forums or something? Are you trying to make it seem like you're more than one person or something?

Again, you still have not posted a .pdf or direct link to your source, just a source-less image taken out of context, hmmm. isn't that considered cherrypicking, the very same cherrypicking you claim to despise?

nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
I guess this graph from this NSIDC source is not valid either?

>Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2012: Sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through December 2012, data are derived from passive microwave (SMMR / SSM/I). Image by Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2013/04/was-esmr-screwy.html
>the ESMR (Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer) 1973-1976. It was a much simpler instrument than the SMMR, SSMI, SSMI-S, and AMSR which started flying in 1978 and since. The more recent ones have two very important improvements over the ESMR -- they use multiple channels (think of it as colors) and they use both horizontal and vertical polarizations rather than just total power.

Wrong. I know little on this topic, and I'm researching it right now. ESMR was a completely inferior way to measure sea ice, which is why the switch to SMMR was undertaken and why observations don't start in 1972.

NSIDC has nothing to do with the IPCC you cunt. IPCC doesn't do their own research, they don't collect the data, they don't publish peer review paper. It's an organization that looks at the scientific evidence and publishes reports for policy makers. That's fucking it.

> Throwing legitimate religious doctrines and sources at religiously illiterate deniers is trying to teach a dog how to read. You'll get nowhere.

You lost me at geopolitics

Anyway through utilization high potential high frequency discharge one can 'rip' or mores so bond the carbon out of the atmosphere, same can be done with nitrogen to produce an evironmentally friendly method of fertilizer production and ozone can also be produced using the same method.

show the machine that does it, without using a billion tons of oil to run it

With lots of nuclear, maybe / probably. Too bad the environmentalists would rather fuck the world than do that.

See Nikola Tesla: Colorado Springs Notes, page 334, Photograph X.]

FIG. 1. BURNING THE NITROGEN OF THE ATMOSPHERE.
Note to Fig. 1.—This result is produced by the discharge of an electrical oscillator giving twelve million volts. The electrical pressure, alternating one hundred thousand times per second, excites the normally inert nitrogen, causing it to combine with the oxygen. The flame-like discharge shown in the photograph measures sixty-five feet across.

This is taken from teslas problem with increasing human energy, and it refers to this device, pic related

Also we have 1 solar, 2 wind, 3 hydroelectric power sources capable of powering a large enough scale version to be useful.
Also through utilization of the difference in potential in the ionosphere and magnetoshere one can 'siphon' the excess potential, or the literal difference between the charge in the given fields through an applied load.
The earth is a charged sphere why don't we utilize it's properties, i mean seriously pull shit out of the ground and burn it to create a difference in potential from the earth surface so I have electrical pressure to power things. Its barbaric and kind of counterintuitive of its own cause. Wouldn't it make more sense to draw from a source of higher potential and less Resistance. Its nearly like someone profits off digging this shit up or something.
All you need is a structure sufficiently earthed and of relative height to the potential you wish to harness, need a 'net' or antenna capable of inducting radiant energy to give you a bit of a starting charge, a charging cuircut, 3 transformers with relative spark gaps, a medium to oscillate your cuircut periodically and a load to apply you potential to. (There are a few things I intentionally left out or described wrong, it at least offers me plausable deniability) but its basically that simple, more so that the creation of electricity via coal or any means sourced within earth

>Nikola Tesla
>he married his pigeon
ok

>thinking electricity production causes most of the CO2

Environmentalists are not climate scientist, and almost everyone I know involved in the Earth sciences believes that Nuclear is a perfectly viable solution to decreasing fossil fuel emissions. Stop generalizing.

Isn't the definition of an ice age "when there is ice on the poles of the earth"? Last time I checked, we were coming out of an ice age, and while fossil fuels etc will speed the process up, the earth has only had ice at it's poles for a fraction of it's existance. Do we really think that we are so important that this process should stop, just because we weren't here before the poles froze in the first place?

Tl;dr humans aren't the center of the universe. Earth isn't meant to maintain ice capa anyway

>>he married his pigeon
Wut

I'm an Earth Science student so hopefully I'm an authority enough for you to trust. You're mixing up your terms.

We have been in an ice age for about 2.5 million years, give or take 100,000 years. About 30 million years ago Australia broke off from Antarctica (the two had been 1 continent for about 700 million years) and floated north. This created the Antarctic Circumpolar current, a current that goes around Antarctica without stopping. Because nothing gets in its way it builds up energy and became the strongest current on Earth.

This wasn't the only development. About 3 million years ago North and South America collided with an island chain between them, the Isthmus of Panama. This created an uninterrupted landmass from Arctic to Antarctic and forced warm tropical currents north and south in the Atlantic ocean. This severely weakened the once stronger equatorial current and cooled the Atlantic currents by exposing them to polar water quicker than before.

By 2.5 million years ago weaker currents from the equator being diverted from Australia could no longer cross the barrier of the circumpolar current and Antarctica froze solid. The arctic froze later as a response to Antarctica freezing. It's hard to imagine perhaps but Antarctica freezing caused the Arctic to also freeze on the opposite side of the Earth.

To be in an ice age several things must be present, which has rarely ever happened in Earth's history. Ice ages are not the norm.

Carbon dioxide must be low, equatorial currents must be weak, and a landmass must be present on one of the poles. If all those conditions aren't met, no ice age.

What you are confused with is we are currently in is called an Interglacial. We are still very definitely in an ice age. Interglacial periods simply describe the ebb and flow of glaciation toward the temperate zone and toward the poles with an interglacial period describing when ice at the poles is at its minimum. While a 'glacial' describes conditions where glaciers reach their maximum.

Fun fact. We should be heading back into a glacial. That's what the Millankovitch cycles tell us. Humans have most likely delayed the next glacial by 5000 years or more while some scientists fear we may have destroyed it altogether.

You are correct. Most models that we use to predict the trends (which aren't perfect, as deniers claim climatologists say they are, but are good enough that the predictions are useful for the field and accurate) show that without greenhouse gas forcings from anthropogenic CO2 emissions, that climate would be cooling every so slightly, being pretty stable as well, but cooling.

>actually linking to a wordpress blog as a source
xD

we need to import ice from space

>deniers can handwave the disappearance of three thousand billion tons of ice
Let me guess, it went into the cocktail glasses of all the globalist Jewish overlords right?

Go back to /x/ libtard.