Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Ah yes, our resident expert astrophysicist, geophysicist, volcanologist, meteorologist and climatologist sets us all straight again --- with his opinion.

So what if "there is an active volcano under the Thwaites Glacier"? Believe there are many, many cities situated "on" ice-shrouded volcanoes, especially if we use your metrics, since Mt. Murphy is located 60 miles to the west of Thwaites. Isn't Seattle in the shadow of an active volcano?

https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm...ion=population

As for "90 % is actually floating", well if that's the case, then the part that isn't floating is nonetheless pretty significant, since it's contents would raise global sea level by about two thirds of a meter, which would put it's land volume, by my calculation, at 223,820 cu km. (361,000,000 x .62 divided by 1000)

For comparison, Thwaites has about the same area as the entire state of Florida.

And why should we "Actually read the article and notice all of the may might and could type language in it", which is the way actual science is actually truthfully reported, when we can be amused at your a-scientific pronouncements displaying arch ambiguity.

To wit:

"an active volcano under the thwaites Glacier"

"the little bit of land"

"an extremely small part of the total ice sheet"

"in my opinion"

"90 % is actually floating" (untruth)

"it is not going anywhere anytime soon"


Oh, the ---- ambiguity...

And yet I will be proven correct once again . Wait 5 years jimbo.

Edit. I said active erupting volcano under the Glacier not a hundred miles away from a minor volcanic activity such as the dome building phase currently at mount St Helen's.
Try again .

[jimbunyard]

Free crabs tomorrow...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Free crabs tomorrow...

Not quite free but yes really cheap will just cost me a couple raw chicken wings .
Dungeness winter season is upon us here

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Does anyone realise that there is an active volcano under the thwaites Glacier on the little bit of land it actually sits on . 90 % is actually floating and it is an extremely small part of the total ice sheet . And in my opinion it is not going anywhere anytime soon . Actually read the article and notice all of the may might and could type language in it .

Originally Posted by newhaul

And yet I will be proven correct once again . Wait 5 years jimbo.
Edit. I said active erupting volcano under the Glacier not a hundred miles away from a minor volcanic activity such as the dome building phase currently at mount St Helen's.
Try again .

Have you notified the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration [1], or other scientists, working in Antarctica? They should be made aware of your revolutionary discoveries, and [always accurate] prediction[s].

Volcanic heat sources aren't a new [or increasing threat] to the West Antarctic ice sheet, but rather have been going on over geologic timescales, and therefore represent a background contribution to the melting of the ice sheet. The Antarctic ice sheet is at least 30 million years old, and volcanism there has been going on for millions of years. It's having no new effect, on the current melting of the ice sheet.
While the exact number of volcanoes in Antarctica is unknown, a recent study [2] found 138 volcanoes in West Antarctica alone. Many of the active volcanoes are located in Marie Byrd Land. However, there’s no evidence of a dramatic volcanic eruption in Antarctica in the recent geologic past.

[1]“Thwaites Glacier Facts” ~ International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration [ITGC]
➥ https://thwaitesglacier.org/about/facts

[2] “A new volcanic province: an inventory of subglacial volcanoes in West Antarctica”
➥ https://sp.lyellcollection.org/conte...1/231.full.pdf

“The threat from Thwaites: the retreat of Antarctica’s riskiest glacier”
➥ https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/the...kiest-glacier/
Video ➥

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBbgWsR4-aw

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Have you notified the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration [1], or other scientists, working in Antarctica? They should be made aware of your revolutionary discoveries, and [always accurate] prediction[s].

Volcanic heat sources aren't a new [or increasing threat] to the West Antarctic ice sheet, but rather have been going on over geologic timescales, and therefore represent a background contribution to the melting of the ice sheet. The Antarctic ice sheet is at least 30 million years old, and volcanism there has been going on for millions of years. It's having no new effect, on the current melting of the ice sheet.
While the exact number of volcanoes in Antarctica is unknown, a recent study [2] found 138 volcanoes in West Antarctica alone. Many of the active volcanoes are located in Marie Byrd Land. However, there’s no evidence of a dramatic volcanic eruption in Antarctica in the recent geologic past.

[1]“Thwaites Glacier Facts” ~ International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration [ITGC]
➥ https://thwaitesglacier.org/about/facts

[2] “A new volcanic province: an inventory of subglacial volcanoes in West Antarctica”
➥ https://sp.lyellcollection.org/conte...1/231.full.pdf

“The threat from Thwaites: the retreat of Antarctica’s riskiest glacier”
➥ https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/the...kiest-glacier/
Video ➥

A bit more current

Subglacial Volcanoes

However even with the natural nature of the melt the Glacier will not melt away.

I use the numerous failed predictions of " the science " over the ,last 100+ years. As my basis for my informed opinion.

[newhaul]

This article may actually be of interest to many here

Canada’s newest Arctic and offshore patrol ship stopped in Virginia last week after finishing a circumnavigation of North American for its first deployment.

https://news.usni.org/2021/12/13/new...eid=d4be3d69a3

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... I use the numerous failed predictions of " the science " over the ,last 100+ years. As my basis for my informed opinion.

Having rejected science, because you judge it to have failed to live up to your predictive standards, you automatically adopt the opposite position.
Thanks, for explaining the "logical" basis for your predictions.

[GordMay]

‘Janus textile’ could keep you warm and cool you down

Researchers in Belgium have unveiled the design for a fabric that could keep a person warm when worn one way, while cooling them down if worn inside out. [1]

Dielectric fibres, on one side of the thin fabric, would let infrared radiation from the body escape, for a cooling effect.
When reversed, the other side’s metallic fibres would keep the radiation in.
Models show the two-faced fabric would keep a person comfortable from 11 °C to 24 °C.

More about ➥ https://physicsworld.com/a/janus-tex...cool-you-down/

[1] “Janus-Yarn Fabric for Dual-Mode Radiative Heat Management” ~ Muluneh G. Abebe et al
➥ https://journals.aps.org/prapplied/a...lied.16.054013

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Having rejected science, because you judge it to have failed to live up to your predictive standards, you automatically adopt the opposite position.
Thanks, for explaining the "logical" basis for your predictions.

Gord as I have asked many times before .
Tell me one actual long term prediction from the MSM scientists on climate change that have actually come to pass .
Just one . That cannot be proven to be a natural occurrence.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

‘Janus textile’ could keep you warm and cool you down

Researchers in Belgium have unveiled the design for a fabric that could keep a person warm when worn one way, while cooling them down if worn inside out. [1]

Dielectric fibres, on one side of the thin fabric, would let infrared radiation from the body escape, for a cooling effect.
When reversed, the other side’s metallic fibres would keep the radiation in.
Models show the two-faced fabric would keep a person comfortable from 11 °C to 24 °C.

More about ➥ https://physicsworld.com/a/janus-tex...cool-you-down/

[1] “Janus-Yarn Fabric for Dual-Mode Radiative Heat Management” ~ Muluneh G. Abebe et al
➥ https://journals.aps.org/prapplied/a...lied.16.054013

Do the research although a cool idea . The temperature range it functions are temps that I am always wearing shorts and a tee-shirt. That range is 52° F to 74°F
Now when they get the range to 0°C to 38°C then they will have something worth looking at.

[newhaul]

The Parker Solar Probe is the first spacecraft to visit the sun’s atmosphereThe probe crossed an invisible boundary that has been predicted for decades but never observed

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...test_Headlines

[GordMay]

In 1979, the “Charney Report” (U.S. National Research Council 1979) [1] was the first attempt to review the state of the science, on the global warming problem, put together by some of the leading climate experts of the day. Some of the key statements in this report were almost prescient in their accuracy.

The Charney Report’s conclusion, even back then was unequivocal:
The climate will change, in response to the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, that had already been emitted.
By 1979, that information was already old news to the scientific community, courtesy of researchers going as far back as Svante Arrhenius, and Eunice Foote, in the 19th century. However, in 1979, this information was only just coming to the attention of lawmakers, and the general public, as well.
Overall, this was an example of how early scientists, politicians, and industry groups were presented with evidence, of both the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment, and humanity’s role in the atmospheric increase.
While this report conceded to certain uncertainties, they had enough data to conclude that, at the [then] current rate, carbon dioxide content will be doubled by 2030 [current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels], and that the earth’s climate will change drastically*.

[1] “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” ~ by Jule G. Charney et al, for the Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, of the National Research Council

- A doubling of CO2 atmospheric content, consistent with present trends, results in a global surface warming of 2 to 3.5 degrees C p. 8
- After studying radiative heating, cloud effects, and ocean heat transport, they were “unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warming” p. 9
- Increase of 20 ppm of carbon from 1958 to 1979 p. 10
- Combustible fossil fuels increase airborne proportion of CO2 much higher than 30-50% p. 10
- Carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere will not reduce atmospheric CO2 p. 11
- Less snow, lower global albedo, increased fraction of solar radiation p. 12
- Doubled CO2 produces a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius solely from changed infrared radiation p. 12
- Increased water vapor would increase the temperature 2 degrees Celsius p. 12
- Variations of 4 to 8 degrees Celsius in polar or subpolar regions p. 16

Here ➥ https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/...report1979.pdf

Or ➥ https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...port-1979.html




“The Charney Report: 40 years ago, scientists accurately predicted climate change”
➥ https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charne...y-climate.html

“Celebrating the anniversary of three key events in climate change science” ~ Benjamin D. Santer et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0424-x

* Estimates of climate sensitivity are not the same thing as model predictions of future temperatures. Sensitivity is a way to try to describe how the Earth system is capable of reacting, if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were to double, not a prediction of if, or when, that might happen. Future temperatures depend, obviously, on how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide, and how much we actually emit.

[ImaginaryNumber]

2021 Arctic Report Card reveals a (human) story of cascading disruptions, extreme events and global connections

https://theconversation.com/2021-arc...ections-172136

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Report Card Highlights

https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-card

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In 1979, the “Charney Report” (U.S. National Research Council 1979) [1] was the first attempt to review the state of the science, on the global warming problem, put together by some of the leading climate experts of the day. Some of the key statements in this report were almost prescient in their accuracy.

The Charney Report’s conclusion, even back then was unequivocal:
The climate will change, in response to the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, that had already been emitted.
By 1979, that information was already old news to the scientific community, courtesy of researchers going as far back as Svante Arrhenius, and Eunice Foote, in the 19th century. However, in 1979, this information was only just coming to the attention of lawmakers, and the general public, as well.
Overall, this was an example of how early scientists, politicians, and industry groups were presented with evidence, of both the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment, and humanity’s role in the atmospheric increase.
While this report conceded to certain uncertainties, they had enough data to conclude that, at the [then] current rate, carbon dioxide content will be doubled by 2030 [current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels], and that the earth’s climate will change drastically*.

[1] “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” ~ by Jule G. Charney et al, for the Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, of the National Research Council

- A doubling of CO2 atmospheric content, consistent with present trends, results in a global surface warming of 2 to 3.5 degrees C p. 8
- After studying radiative heating, cloud effects, and ocean heat transport, they were “unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warming” p. 9
- Increase of 20 ppm of carbon from 1958 to 1979 p. 10
- Combustible fossil fuels increase airborne proportion of CO2 much higher than 30-50% p. 10
- Carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere will not reduce atmospheric CO2 p. 11
- Less snow, lower global albedo, increased fraction of solar radiation p. 12
- Doubled CO2 produces a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius solely from changed infrared radiation p. 12
- Increased water vapor would increase the temperature 2 degrees Celsius p. 12
- Variations of 4 to 8 degrees Celsius in polar or subpolar regions p. 16

Here ➥ https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/...report1979.pdf

Or ➥ https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...port-1979.html




“The Charney Report: 40 years ago, scientists accurately predicted climate change”
➥ https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charne...y-climate.html

“Celebrating the anniversary of three key events in climate change science” ~ Benjamin D. Santer et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0424-x

* Estimates of climate sensitivity are not the same thing as model predictions of future temperatures. Sensitivity is a way to try to describe how the Earth system is capable of reacting, if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were to double, not a prediction of if, or when, that might happen. Future temperatures depend, obviously, on how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide, and how much we actually emit.

Well well another story bites the dust.

The IPCC itself even admits in CMIP6 that the effects of cloud cover is an unknown and makes modeling extremely difficult . ( all of which to date have severely overblown the actual real world observations by at least a factor of 5 )

Do your due diligence as you keep telling me to

Now explain why we are only .5°C above the pre industrial average .

https://climatereanalyzer.org/reanal...d&wm_id=t2anom

Even used your beloved climatereanalyzer.org

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well well another story bites the dust.

The IPCC itself even admits in CMIP6 that the effects of cloud cover is an unknown and makes modeling extremely difficult . ( all of which to date have severely overblown the actual real world observations by at least a factor of 5 )

Do your due diligence as you keep telling me to

Now explain why we are only .5°C above the pre industrial average .

https://climatereanalyzer.org/reanal...d&wm_id=t2anom

Even used your beloved climatereanalyzer.org

I haven’t read all your posts but this is the first I can recall where you concede the earth is indeed warming. Wow. Welcome to the real world!

There are lots of complicated effects in the atmosphere, clouds are one of them. However these are 2nd order effects.

For the models to be off by 5x, we would either have .1c rise or 2.5c rise (using your .5c) nobody predicted either by 2021.