Antarctic sea-ice at \'mind-blowing\' low alarms experts...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:21:24 AM UTC+10, Öö Tiib wrote:

On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 17:51:50 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot..ee
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says
... and super-volcanoes like ...
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt

The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent,
inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods,
heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently
flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.

https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/

That is the heartland institute that denies every science and statistics, and
just draws whatever lines were ordered. Someone pays them and
tobacco smoking does not cause cancer, someone else and Elvis is alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

It has been documented. The Heartland Institute is just one of several organisations set up reduce public faith in inconvenient scientific facts for people prepared to pay for the service.

It\'s a one more example of American business being willing to pay for misleading propaganda that lets them make more money. Gullible twits like John Larkin fall for it all the time.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/big-myth-9781635573572/

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:09:16 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:21:19 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 17:51:50 UTC+3, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:28:30 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee
wrote:
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 14:19:55 UTC+3, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:34:10?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.
You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.
If there\'s one thing to be learned from the work of the paleo-climatologists it\'s that the Earth is anything but stable. Stability is just a very slow moving transient that eventually leads to an extreme, setting forces in motion to slowly move things in the opposite direction, usually another extreme with overshoot. It\'s just back and forth, back and forth...

From palaeontology research it seems that major extinction events were caused
by asteroids, like ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/newfound-asteroid-may-strike-earth-in-2046-nasa-says
... and super-volcanoes like ...
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/yellowstone-overdue-eruption-when-will-yellowstone-erupt

The climate change will likely be nothing like that. Just more frequent,
inconvenient and costly annoyances. More events like hurricanes, floods,
heatwaves, severe hail etc. Some will die, more will be temporarily evacuated,
property will be destroyed or damaged. Some regions will turn permanently
flooded or into wastelands or deserts, people will migrate away. That is not
causing extinction of humankind.

https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-deaths-from-extreme-weather/

That is the heartland institute that denies every science and statistics, and
just draws whatever lines were ordered. Someone pays them and
tobacco smoking does not cause cancer, someone else and Elvis is alive.

The source is cited.

But you\'ve ignored the fact that it is a partisan source that gets paid to present a particular point of view that hasn\'t got a lot of credibility, but is favoured by monied interests.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:47:14 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:43:39 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 7:02:21 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:56:07 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:19:26 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
As if Antarctic sea ice were the only feature of the planet that moderates climate change. It\'s not as if it has gone - the minimum extent is down to about half the minimum we observed i recent years.

You\'re not very good at awareness of the dynamics at play.

I don\'t seem to share your bizarre misapprehensions.

If anything we\'re finding very major changes can occur quite rapidly and unexpectedly. Hurricane intensification is one such example,

Hurricane intensification was widely predicted. More area of ocean above 26.3 C was always expected to feed bigger, fiercer hurricanes. I mentioned it here years ago. Flyguy has posted nonsense on the subject more recently.

And WHY would anyone listen to the \"nonsense\" coming from an idiot such as yourself that thinks that NUKING and FIREBOMBING your OWN COUNTRY is a good idea?
Sewage Sweeper invents his own nonsense - his misunderstandings of what I\'ve posted are bizarre, but no stanger than his misunderstandings of stuff he has posted in the delusion that it supported his demented poit of view.

Hey Bozo, let\'s get something VERY CLEAR here: I DIDN\'T invent this NONSENSE that YOU posted - YOU DID!

BTW, you can\'t spell \"stranger\" OR \"point\" you IDIOT.

toppling temperature records by large amounts and simultaneously over fairly vast expanses of continents is another, unbelievably intense torrential downpours of yearly precipitation totals within a timespan of hours are another, the list goes on.

What did you think anthropogenic global warming was going to look like? Temperature records haven\'t been broken by \"large amounts\" - they\'ve just been broken, Warmer ocean surfaces feed more water vapour into the air which eventually falls as rain. Thunder heads drop a lot of water as rain whenever they form - there\'s nothing \"unbelievably intense\" about the ones we are seeing today.

The mess in Libya was badly maintained dams that broke.

The step from there to human extinction is a very long stretch. You might like to start trying to fill in the case and effect chain. but that would take work, and you aren\'t up for that.

Not at all, mankind\'s lifeline is more fragile than anyone will admit to.

I\'m sure there are people around with your kind of depressive mental disease, and most of them will be spouting the same kind of rubbish that you are.
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

Sure. Anthropogenic global warming is having a visible effect.It\'s unlikely to take us all the way to species extinction.

They\'re outside the realm of likelihoods and more into certainty.

Species extinction is very unlikely. You can do all the handwaving you like, but your radical alarmism is simply nuts - quite as silly as John Larkin\'s denialism.

Not nearly as silly as your cult-like belief in a climate catastrophe.
Main-stream science isn\'t any kind of cult. You clearly didn\'t get the kind of academic training that would let you understand it, or if you did, senile dementia has washed it all away.
Since I\'m not an anonymous troll I can cite links to my own cited scientific papers - here\'s one. It\'s now got 28 citations;

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-0233/7/11/015/meta

--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney

Bozo\'s Sewage Sweeper

 

[John Robertson]

On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential
terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You
are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion
of Global Warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lReB3GUhKe4

John :-#(#

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:03:39 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:

On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

Fred does over-interpret the climate scientific warnings.

They aren\'t frightening the greedy children of the planet anything like enough. The ones that have been making a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it to be burnt as fuel are spending some of the money they make on lying propaganda that is pretty lame, but got enough to miusdlead gullible twits like you aren John Larkin.

> For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.

The climate change denial propaganda crew should be locked up for simple fraud - they are lying in the hope of getting away with make money out of anti-social activities for a few years longer.

The dangers of persisting anthropogenic global warming may not be as dramatic and immediate as Fred like to think, but they are real and should be minimised with some enthusiasm. Telling people about real risks isn\'t terrorism. The fact that you and John Larkin are too dim to realise that you are being lied too about the reality of the risks doesn\'t mean that they don\'t exist.

> You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.

It\'s not any kind of religion. If you can\'t tell the difference between the conclusions of scientific research filtered through the peer-reviewed literature, and dogma based on some mystical revelation, there\'s not a lot of hope for you. Put your affairs in the hands of some who still has working brain and retire to an asylum for the feeble-minded. Pity about the company you will be keeping.

<snipped the stuff that John ignored, but failed to snip>

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:03:39 PM UTC-7, John Robertson wrote:

On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

Yeah, \'decadal\' meaning ten-year average; this is about an alarming THIS YEAR ONLY
drop, which (because this year isn\'t over) isn\'t in that data. That\'s cherry-picking,
a familiar fallacy in data analysis.

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

That\'s not about ice at all. It\'s about spin, and \'frightening children\' doesn\'t
mean the ice observation or predicted implication is wrong.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:03:39 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:

On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

Fred does over-interpret the climate science warnings.

They aren\'t frightening the greedy children of the planet anything like enough. The ones that have been making a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it to be burnt as fuel are spending some of the money they make on lying propaganda that is pretty lame, but good enough to mislead gullible twits like you and John Larkin.

> For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists.

The climate change denial propaganda crew should be locked up for simple fraud - they are lying in the hope of getting away with making money out of their anti-social activities for a few years longer.

The dangers of persisting anthropogenic global warming may not be as dramatic and immediate as Fred like to think, but they are real and should be minimised with some enthusiasm. Telling people about real risks isn\'t terrorism. The fact that you and John Larkin are too dim to realise that you are being lied too about the reality of the risks doesn\'t mean that they don\'t exist.

> You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.

It\'s not any kind of religion. If you can\'t tell the difference between the conclusions of scientific research filtered through the peer-reviewed literature, and dogma based on some mystical revelation, there\'s not a lot of hope for you. Put your affairs in the hands of some who still has working brain and retire to an asylum for the feeble-minded. Pity about the company you will be keeping.

<snipped the stuff that John ignored, but failed to snip>

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/09/2023 15:41, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:02:55 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/09/2023 16:33, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

You posit a tipping-point latching mechanism with no stabilizing
feedbacks. That makes no sense.

That isn\'t so far off the truth when you start losing large areas of
polar ice. Open sea has a much lower albedo and absorbs vastly more heat
than nice fresh snow. Even dirty snow is much better than open water.
There is substantial positive feedback at least initially.

If there is net positive albedo feedback, we\'d have no ice or we\'d be
100% covered with ice.

We have been close to both extremes in geological history.

Even in the hottest previous conditions there are still parts of the
planet near the poles in midwinter and at high altitude that will remain
very cold indeed. Having all three phases of water present on our planet
acts as a very powerful thermal buffer at each end of the range.

Phase changes are the final stabiliser of last resort.

No sun for a few months and clear skies from time to time makes for a
very very cold environment.

There is a fair amount of hysteresis in the system.

Why? Where?

Because of the net change in albedo. Once ice free it will stay ice free
and some more will be nibbled off the following year. Worse problems
with glaciers since losing weight off the leading edge allows the main
glacier to move towards the sea even faster.

The effect gets less as you get much nearer to the poles but is very
pronounced at latitudes around 70 degrees.

Earth has had tropical phases and ice ages, without humans.

Driven by either vulcanism or the gradual evolution of the Earth\'s
orbital elements aka Milankovitch cycles.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:

On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential
terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You
are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion
of Global Warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lReB3GUhKe4

John :-#(#

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

You\'re missing information in the original BBC article, which is:

\"It\'s so far outside anything we\'ve seen, it\'s almost mind-blowing,\" says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

That\'s the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly\'s of about -0.02 %.

So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.

You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind..
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential
terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You
are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion
of Global Warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lReB3GUhKe4

John :-#(#

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

You\'re missing information in the original BBC article, which is:

\"It\'s so far outside anything we\'ve seen, it\'s almost mind-blowing,\" says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

That\'s not \"information\". It\'s justa verbal flourish.

That\'s the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly\'s of about -0.02 %.

It\'s not in \"stark contrast\". It\'s just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.

So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.

You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.

It\'s definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard\'s walk.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[sci.electronics.design]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential
terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You
are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion
of Global Warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lReB3GUhKe4

John :-#(#

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

You\'re missing information in the original BBC article, which is:

\"It\'s so far outside anything we\'ve seen, it\'s almost mind-blowing,\" says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
That\'s not \"information\". It\'s justa verbal flourish.

That\'s the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly\'s of about -0.02 %.
It\'s not in \"stark contrast\". It\'s just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.
So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.

You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.
It\'s definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard\'s walk.

We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You\'re not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.

<snip>

The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

You\'re missing information in the original BBC article, which is:

\"It\'s so far outside anything we\'ve seen, it\'s almost mind-blowing,\" says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

That\'s not \"information\". It\'s just a verbal flourish.

That\'s the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly\'s of about -0.02 %.

It\'s not in \"stark contrast\". It\'s just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.

So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.

You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.

It\'s definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard\'s walk.

We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You\'re not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.

Presumably you meant to write \"you are \" or \"you\'re scale and movement blind\". That isn\'t a disability I\'ve ever heard of, and I probably wouldn\'t be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect. Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.

As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <jrr@flippers.com>
wrote:

On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and
PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We\'re doomed.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:41:41 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com
wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.
But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and
PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We\'re doomed.

I think it\'s the Greenland glaciers doing the sliding. The ones in Antarctica float away.

Apparently the Bay area thinks it\'s serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.
If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

For that you should be ashamed and quite possibly locked up as potential terrorists. You seek to terrorize people, what else can we call you? You are no better than 10-10 blowing up skeptics who questioned the religion of Global Warming.
snip
The measured loss is already a full standard deviation removed from the most recent record. That\'s not a \'variation\', it\'s a driven event.

\"\"Are we awakening this giant of Antarctica?\" asks Prof Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter. It would be \"an absolute disaster for the world,\" he says.

There are signs that what is already happening to Antarctica\'s ice sheets is in the worst-case scenario range of what was predicted, says Prof Anna Hogg, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds.\"

\"As more sea-ice disappears, it exposes dark areas of ocean, which absorb sunlight instead of reflecting it, meaning that the heat energy is added into the water, which in turn melts more ice. Scientists call this the ice-albedo effect.

That could add a lot more heat to the planet, disrupting Antarctica\'s usual role as a regulator of global temperatures.\"

...which means once critical mass is melted, it\'s gone for good, and won\'t be coming back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246

You\'re missing information in the original BBC article, which is:

\"It\'s so far outside anything we\'ve seen, it\'s almost mind-blowing,\" says Walter Meier, who monitors sea-ice with the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

That\'s not \"information\". It\'s just a verbal flourish.

That\'s the same snow and ice center collecting the data for the NOAA page you linked. You might notice the anomaly for 2013 extent is -0.13% which is in stark contrast to typical yearly\'s of about -0.02 %.

It\'s not in \"stark contrast\". It\'s just bigger. Bad years for ice cover are worse than regular years, and they show up less often.

So, on the one hand you discount the significance of the BBC story, and then turn around and think you found a basis for your decision on a website produced by the very people making the BBC story.

You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.

It\'s definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard\'s walk.

We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You\'re not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.
Presumably you meant to write \"you are \" or \"you\'re scale and movement blind\". That isn\'t a disability I\'ve ever heard of, and I probably wouldn\'t be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect. Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.

You illustrate perfectly the results of the recent study I linked to that concluded overconfidence increases exponentially with intermediate but less than comprehensive levels of knowledge.

That idiotic statement about \'one year low\' is a case in point. You\'re too illiterate to understand that a deviation that great arises from such an absurdly small probability of random occurrence that it cannot be interpreted as such. Then you seem oblivious to the well-publicized fact that the majority of climate research is dedicated to discerning tends.

You\'re pretty good at breezing through Chapter 0, but are hopelessly too underpowered to complete the rest of the treatise.

As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:41:41?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com
wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.
But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and
PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We\'re doomed.

I think it\'s the Greenland glaciers doing the sliding. The ones in Antarctica float away.

Apparently the Bay area thinks it\'s serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.

Yeah, sea level here is rising 2 mm per year. We don\'t have much time
left. We\'ll all doomed to drown.

The ocean will be sloshing around my kitchen in... calculates
furiously... just 50,000 years!

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 6:16:18 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs

Apparently the Bay area thinks it\'s serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.
Yeah, sea level here is rising 2 mm per year. We don\'t have much time
left. We\'ll all doomed to drown.

New conditions (climate change, global warming, CO2 pollution) apply,
invalidating your linear extrapolation. Everyone else has known this for decades.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:41:41 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com
wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We\'re doomed.

Ice sheets have glaciers, and glaciers feed ice-bergs into the sea. It has been happening for at least the last 2.6 million years, and we aren\'t dead yet.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:20:09 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:41:41 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:03:28 -0700, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com
wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
Loss of sea ice on this scale means complete loss of climate fluctuation moderation, climatic chaos, and a terminal extinction event for mankind.

If you bothered to go the source - like NOAA - you would see that the
Decadal Trend for the Southern Hemisphere sea ice is 0.00%. That is ZERO
followed by a couple more zeros. 0.00 million km2.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/S/8

You people would be hilarious in your fear mongering blather if you
weren\'t frightening the children of the planet.

But, but, but, antarctic glaciers are sliding into the ocean and
PIECES ARE BREAKING OFF! We\'re doomed.

I think it\'s the Greenland glaciers doing the sliding. The ones in Antarctica float away.

All glaciers slide, and the GRACE satellites show that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice.

> Apparently the Bay area thinks it\'s serious enough to start planning now for some kind of $100B seawall.

James Hansen does think that the glaciers involved will start to slide faster - much the same sort of thing happened (with different ice sheets, now gone) at the end of the the most recent ice age.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:29:06 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:38:12 PM UTC+10, sci.electronics.design wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:30:59 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:15:54 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2023/09/17 5:19 a.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

You tell me who\'s the lunatic here.

It\'s definitely you. You want to make a epoch-making mountain out of a bigger than usual step along a drunkard\'s walk.

We all know that your scale and movement blind, so that kind of non-reaction is to be expected. You\'re not enough of a climatologist to appreciate the significance of their measurement numbers.

Presumably you meant to write \"you are \" or \"you\'re scale and movement blind\". That isn\'t a disability I\'ve ever heard of, and I probably wouldn\'t be a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement chapter if I suffered from that kind of defect. Experimental scientists do appreciate measurement numbers. Semi-literate anonymous trolls exploit them as items to be rude about.

You illustrate perfectly the results of the recent study I linked to that concluded overconfidence increases exponentially with intermediate but less than comprehensive levels of knowledge.

That\'s exactly the kind of over-confident assertion you get from people like you, whose reach exceeds their grasp.

> That idiotic statement about \'one year low\' is a case in point. You\'re too illiterate to understand that a deviation that great arises from such an absurdly small probability of random occurrence that it cannot be interpreted as such. Then you seem oblivious to the well-publicized fact that the majority of climate research is dedicated to discerning tends.

You haven\'t posted the frequency distribution that you\'d need to back up that claim. Neither did the original paper. Picking trends out of noisy data is difficult.

> You\'re pretty good at breezing through Chapter 0, but are hopelessly too underpowered to complete the rest of the treatise.

A chunk of my Ph.D. work was extracting reaction rate data from my observations. I ended up writing my own non-linear multi-parameter least squares curve-fitting program to pull out the reaction rate as well as the starting and equilibrium concentrations of my reactant (with objective, if low, error estimates). The treatise got me my Ph.D, and you could read it in the Melbourne University library. if you could notch your reading competence up a bit.

> > As Flyguy illustrates, mindless incomprehension is perfectly compatible with mindless abuse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney