Arctic ice area is at a ten year high for the date, and has blown away the previous record for ice growth by more than half a million km^2.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Arctic Blows Away The Old Record For Winter Ice Growth
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
Does Julienne hibernate?
Yes, only comes out in September after arctic cyclones.
I don’t understand the hoopla — ice extent for this date is still more than 500,000 ks under the 1979 to 2000 mean. Not much to celebrate.
OMG – we are doomed.
I will wait for the ice to return to the mean or above before I celebrate.
Satellites went up in 1979 right at the coldest period of the last 80 years. Cold is not something to celebrate.
Then why are you crowing over this large increase of winter ice growth?
This is called satire. I am making fun of nitwit alarmists.
Indeed – satellites went up in ’79. And before that?
We all recall that leading up to that infamous Newsweek piece in 1974 was the fear that the “rapidly expanding Arctic ice extent” might be signs of a coming ice age.
Now – regardless; just note that they were well aware that the ice extent had been greatly expanding for several decades just prior to 1974. A graphic was also in the article, where the ice extent back on May 26, 1954 (?) was delineated, as well as where it had expanded to on May 26, 1974. It was a considerable expansion – and, for May..
The curious question(s) are:
1.) From what extent had it expanded from, and
2.) what about the melting/shrinking cycle that led up to 1954, or so?
In 1974 we didn’t know about the existence of dark energy, which comprises about 3/4ths of the mass of the Universe.
Neverrtheless, I’m sure whatever Newsweek wrote about cosmology back then was spot-on absolute truth for all eternity.
RE: David Appell – “In 1974 blah blah blah…”
In 2013 we still don’t know much about the universe. Nevertheless, I’m sure whatever your favorite physics journal writes about cosmology today is spot-on absolute truth for all eternity.
Yes,it is, for what has been proven via theory and observation.
Or do you think Newton’s laws of gravity might be suddenly overturned next year, with the gravitational force being found to be proportional to 1/r^3 instead of, as everyone thought all this time, 1/r^2??
RE: David Appell – “Or do you think Newton’s laws of gravity might be suddenly overturned next year”
I never made that claim sir, but oh I do enjoy watching you put words in others mouths. Me, I prefer to paste your words verbatim…
Do you think what any physics journal writes about cosmology today is spot-on absolute truth for all eternity? Its a pretty absurd claim, whether one chooses 1974 or 2013.
Next diversion please.
I don’t mean to be mean. But why does your mean end in 2000? Got a calendar? What does it all mean? 😉
The meaning of the 1979 to 200 mean is they want to define the MEANing of the mean! You know what I mean? 😉
I mean to apologize if you think I am being mean!
They also need to update their mean!!! Its a bit lacking!
RE: David Appell – “In 1974 blah blah blah…”
In 2013 we still don’t know much about the universe. Nevertheless, I’m sure whatever your favorite physics journal writes about cosmology today is spot-on absolute truth for all eternity.
But it is VERY thin ice. No way a polar bear can skate on such thin ice.
Yowza, you may have missed the find of data from the DMI last year on Arctic ice from 1890- 1960. From 1900- 1920 arctic ice was about the same as ice from 1979- 2000, obviously there is more ice now – 2013.
And yet strangely, average annual Arctic SIE extent keeps dropping. How to explain this amazing paradox???
You are incapable of explaining it. It is your religious dogma that provides you with the gospel of CO2. It is impossible it is anyting else in your world. That would be heresy to the ecofacists.
Apparently there is no explaining it. It’s a fundamental paradox of the universe, like wave-particle duality or Einstein’s twins. Strange!
Perhaps you can explain why Antarctic sea ice is steadily increasing, even as NASA claims Antarctica is melting down? A fundamental paradox of government funded climate fraud.
Another paradox! There is no end to them!! Nobody understands anything!!!
Nobody understands anything!!!
Bravo – first sensible comment you have made.
Then we are in big trouble — clearly nothing sensible could exist on this blog unless the world was coming an end.
I post all kinds of great information on this blog. Unfortunately it requires an IQ greater than 70 to recognize it.
Is 70 the real part of the IQ, or the complex component? I could pass if it’s the complex part.
Since you are so smart, I am sure you can explain why USHCN adjustments have been increasing exponentially since 1990, when their documentation indicates that it went flat.
I await your lame attempt to avoid my question and change the subject.
You have this all figured out, don’t you? Wasn’t it ‘data tampering?’ Some scientist deep in a NASA basement takes his stubby little pencil, erases the 2’s, and replaces them with 9’s.
Presto, global warming.
There is no question that it is data tampering, by definition.
The challenge to you is to actually answer the question, for once in your life.
But you already have it all figured out. Nothing I could possibly contribute would change your mind in the least.
I don’t have any idea why they think they could get away with such blatant fraud. I am asking you to explain it to me.
Because people like you, who see right through all their dasterdly, nefarious schemes, have no credibility.
You can cry wolf all day long, but based on your past performance people write you off as a scoundrel of equal proportions. So they ignore you, no doubt to the entire galaxy’s peril.
Your bed = made. Probably time to change your name.
Ehy don’t you come clean about having money tied up in this scam?
Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device
Sure, I’m getting so rich off all this I’m thinking of buying another house.
Seriously, your image needs repolishing. How about a new fake name? Maybe “Eve Oddard?”
I understand that you are probably not making a lot of money off this scam, but the only possible reason for anyone to be so completely obtuse about facts is because they are protecting some vested interest.
Sure — and the more obtuse I am, the more money I make. It’s like Christmas, but every day!
I’m so sorry you are on to me, given how completely above-board your blogging is.
You have had a opportunities to explain it to us David and yet you still have not,why?
I said — it’s an utterly amazing paradox.
Let’s call it the “Goddard* Paradox.”
The asterick is to indicate the fake name.
Yowza says:
March 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm
“I don’t understand the hoopla — ice extent for this date is still more than 500,000 ks under the 1979 to 2000 mean. Not much to celebrate
———————————
Actually global Sea Ice is a couple of hundred thousand K above the long term average.
—————————————————————
This makes the paradox even more baffling. We seem to be gaining ice at a record pace, and yet the annual average keeps getting lower.
Clearly, when there’s no ice left we will be gaining it at an infinite rate.
What part of “Actually global Sea Ice is a couple of hundred thousand K above the LONG term average.” do you not understand?
The part I don’t understand is that the annual average, and the annual minimum, keeps dropping,
But please, straighten me out on my misconceptions.
“when there’s no ice left we will be gaining it at an infinite rate.”
Goddard’s Paradox
I had to laugh in spite of myself.
Yowza: Back to the old tricks. Take the coldest year in 10K years as your starting point, and you can prove the Little Ice Age was a heat wave. 1979 (your starting point) was around the time Time and Newsweek ran cover stories about the coming Ice Age Said cataclysmic freezing was caused by due US emissions, of course Alarmists were saying the 2 deg C drop since 1900 meant mass starvation, etc. Same liberal hogwash, opposite end of the thermometer
Stuart,
1979 was chosen for the simple reason as it was the first year of when we had accurate satellite mapping.
Nonsense. Nimbus satellites were providing accurate mapping for a decade prior to 1979.
The ’70s were great, but, you know, things have moved on since then.
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Winters 1977, 1978 and 1979 were the three coldest consecutive winters in US History. January 1977, 1978 and 1979 were the top three coldest Januaries ever recorded at Waterloo, IA. Those 3 winters were among the top six coldest on record over much of the Midwest. I guess that was all made up and was just a myth to deceive us non believers. But if you like, check out the records and prove me wrong!
Yes! It was!
We appreciate your cooperation.
Also, for forgetting that the US is 2% of globe. Thank you!
But when the same 2-3% has a heatwave like last summer, the alarmists will not let you hear the end of it.
You mean the UNPRECEDENTED heat wave of last summer?
Yes, that kind of thing matters w.r.t. global warming.
Expect more of them.
Ice age worries in the 70s, warming worries in the 30s, ice age worries in the 20s… We’ll have more ice age worries in a few years, then it’ll switch again.
http://www.mrc.org/node/30586
The next ice age is toast, unless humans decide they want it by sucking CO2 out of the air and sequesting it.
Every since one of you would, if humanity suddenly had to decamp to Mars, decide to make it more hospitable by thickening it atmosphere. The absolute first method you would decide upon is emitting CO2 and water vapor, the very same things that cause warming on Earth.
David Appell:
This Ice Age started about 38 MILLION years ago and the world has been swinging between periods of glaciation and warming since then! For the last 5,000 years the globe has been on a cooling trend toward the next Maximum Glacial Extent! If you want to discuss climate and weather patterns you really need to learn what you are talking about.
The long term cooling trend has not stopped until the globe achieves the same warmth it had during the Holocene Optimum and we are a long way from that. If we continue the same non-adjusted trend we have been following over the last 120 years we should reach that temperature in about 110,000 years.
This Ice Age started about 38 MILLION years ago
False.
Dumb.
Next??
This little propaganda piece is hilarious to those of us who were actually living back then. The truth is that there were a lot of scientists who jumped on the PR bandwagon, just like there are today. But the “article” s correct on the point of consensus. The funny thing is that there is no more “consensus” today than there was back then. What’s even more funny is that consensus is irrelevant to science. It either is, or it isn’t. None of the climate change models that this is all based on, and that we have had more than a decade to evaluate, seem to be able to predict any observed phenomena.
So, please excuse me for not being impressed with such a pathetic attempt at an argument.
D Appell says…Then we are in big trouble — clearly nothing sensible could exist on this blog unless the world was coming an end.
———————————————————————————-
clearly you can find nothing sensible in the world if man made CO2 is not the end of the world. Science on the other hand has many possivle explanations for the decrease in NH SI, and the increase in SH sea ice, and none of the portend the end of the world and CO2 need not be a part of those explanations.
My elementary science textbooks had a story in it about the coming ice age. I assumed that by the time I was an adult, everyone would be battling the advancing glaciers. Did I imagine that?
Yes, you did — seriously misunderstanding the timescale on which ice ages occur.
But aren’t childhood fantasies precious?
Why do scientists, with MSM parrots speak of AGW as if they were scientific theory when AGW is not.
Why do liberals & conservatives agree about scientific theory, but in this particular working hypothesis (AGW) disagree?
What does “The science is Settled” really mean?
Next?
David Appell:
You display a lack of understanding related to Ice Ages. You really should not try to explain things you do not understand.
Reexamine your chronology. The last ice age ended about 12K ya.
What is this wrong time of the month or what?
You stay away for about a month them, pop, here you are pronouncing yet more ignorance by trying to prove to how smart you are.
Run out of meds or what?
You MAY have a high IQ but your stability is definitely suspect.
Oh and by the way in 1974 the CIA put out a report about the coming ice age!
No, you didn’t imagine it. People were quite energetic worrying about the upcoming ice age,
There will not be a next ice age. Period.
OK?
There was an ice age during the Ordovician with CO2 close to 4,000 PPM. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You need to do better literature searches.
I’d correct you, but it does no good.
Search harder. Start with plain old Google.
David Appell:
Steven is right about that Ice Age that occurred with CO2 around 4000ppm. Google probably will not be enough to help you.
The trend toward maximum Glaciation is continuing and your fairy tales will not stop it.
The next Ice age is due in about 90 to 100Million years. However that depends on when the globe comes out of the present Ice Age. Not being a sooth sayer, like you claim to be, I can only go by past patterns related to global climate, as displayed in the geological records.
Unfortnately he is not.
Search the literature harder.
The next Ice age is due in about 90 to 100Million years.
Complete bullshit.
The next ice age is due in a couple thousand years:
Determining the natural length of the current interglacial
P. C. Tzedakis et al, Nat Geo, VOL 5 j FEBRUARY 2012
David Appell:
Think about what you just wrote!
The current “INTERGLACIAL”
Interglacials happen during Ice Ages and our current one started about 38 MILLION years ago.
If you took time to get your head out of your ass you might learn something.
The globe started warming from the Last Maximum Glaciation about 19,000 years ago.
The last Ice Age ended about 150 Million years ago.
Your lack of knowledge is showing.
all this claptrap about Paradoxes and CO2, Can you say Ocean Outgassing?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
If the oceans are outgassing, why is their acidification increasing?
Still worried about the ALKALINE ocean eh,well you can stay away from the coastline until it is all over in a billion years.
The acidity of the oceans is increasing — by 30% since the Industrial Revolution.
Care to pretend otherwise? Bring it on…..
When you took chemistry (I am assuming you did) did they ever teach you about buffered systems? If they did, you would know that you are completely FOS.
Seawater is alkaline, and shows no change over the last twenty years
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
All chemical compounds — including water — have an acidity.
And the ocean’s has increased 30% since the Industrial Revolution.
Do you think something magical happens when pH drops just below 7? No, it does not. Reaction rates depend on acidity, which is increasing.
RE: David Appell
“All chemical compounds — including water — have a basicity.”
There, fixed it for you. Oh merciful knowledge bearer, tell us are there more OH- ions or more H+ ions in the ocean?
How many more OH- than H+ ions are there in the ocean, Mr Appell? I bet you don’t know, or you do know but are too afraid to say.
The absolute number of ions doesn’t matter. Their ratio does.
Nothing magical happens when pH drops below 7. No new reactions occur, or anything like that.
It’s all a matter of scale.
Have you studies ANY chemistry at all? Even in 10th grade?
RE: David Appell – “The absolute number of ions doesn’t matter. Their ratio does.”
Current average earth ocean pH = 8.1
-log[H+] = 8.1
log[H+] = -8.1
H+ = 10^(-8.1) = 7.94 X 10^-9 mol/L
-log[OH-] = 5.9
log[OH-] = -5.9
OH- = 10^(-5.9) = 1.26 X 10^-6 mol/L
Ratio [OH-] / [H+] = 158.5
How’s that professor? There are 158 times as many OH- ions as H+ ions.
Yawn… I for one will sleep very well tonight. I recommend you do the same.
Next diversion?
Your pH(ocean) is too high, but in any case it doesn’t matter.
Organism don’t react to pH (which is an artificial construct), but to ion concentration.
RE: David Appell – “Your pH ocean is too high”
8.1 is spot on.
See page 16 Royal Society graph. (Hat tip Ben Steven)
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/RoyalSociety_OceanAcidification.pdf
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/
RE: David Appell – “Organism don’t react to pH (which is an artificial construct), but to ion concentration.”
And I listed both, Mr Appell. Would you prefer different units?
Next diversion please…
Human units don’t matter.
Chemistry matters.
Why do you think all the ocean scientists are concerned about acidification, when you aren’t?
They’re all just dummies when you are a genius??
Ben, dummy: see your link, Table 1, pg 13. pH=8.18 is the PRE-INDUSTRIAL level. Acidity has decreased 30% since then; the calculation is trivial:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html
RE: David Appell – “http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html”
Nice. I never said 8.18, you did. But on your own link you yourself use 8.1!
7.93 doesn’t happen theoretically until 560 ppm CO2. I got that from scientists that I respect, at the IPCC.
The link you offered said pH(pre-Industrial Revolution) = 8.18.
Are you now backing away from your own citation?
Do you deny that acidity is increasing?
Do you think organisms only care when pH drops below 7?
Or do you think they notice the increased availablity of H+ ions?
And react accordingly?
RE: David Appell – “The link you offered said pH(pre-Industrial Revolution) = 8.18”
I made no assertions regarding pre-Industrial Revolution pH.
I asserted that today’s global ocean pH is ~8.1. Do you respect IPCC AR4 and the Royal society?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-24.html
RE: David Appell – “Are you now backing away from your own citation?”
Not at all. I embrace it.
RE: David Appell – “Do you deny that acidity is increasing?”
Not at all. Acidity is increasing. Basicity is decreasing. I enjoy answering that question as repeatedly as you ask it.
RE: David Appell – “Do you think organisms only care when pH drops below 7?”
I am not sure that all organisms are capable of caring. But we can care on their behalf. Life has flourished, and currently flourishes in a highly variable and sometimes volatile pH range.
RE: David Appell – “Or do you think they notice the increased availablity of H+ ions?”
No, I don’t think they notice. The organisms experience a complicated molecular cascade, with feedbacks, no matter what they notice. This allows limited adaptation to the changing pH levels.
RE: David Appell – “And react accordingly?”
Already answered.
Try some reading (preferably after you’ve had your meds) –
http://pindanpost.com/2011/11/27/clams-cant-read/
Try some more reading (after you’ve taken your meds)
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N9/EDIT.php
Ha. Who do you think pays for CO2science.org?
They thank you for being a sucker.
It is amazing that David post a lot of words but avoids answering specific questions with his PH.D in his back pocket.
Go ahead David and answer a few of Steves questions and maybe you have something we missed.
No harm trying eh?
But I have a PhD — why do I need to answer questions from peons like you?
I don’t.
It was your choice to come here and pick a fight, and then you decided to run away. Nice.
Ahh no wonder you can’t ANSWER questions because you are so gosh darn Smart!
“Since you are so smart, I am sure you can explain why USHCN adjustments have been increasing exponentially since 1990, when their documentation indicates that it went flat.”
and,
“Perhaps you can explain why Antarctic sea ice is steadily increasing, even as NASA claims Antarctica is melting down? A fundamental paradox of government funded climate fraud.”
But someone smarter than you asked questions and you avoid them but still you hang around here anyway because you are unhappy and want that unhappiness reinforced by coming here to deal with people YOU make clear in your mind as being beneath you.
I think you are having emotional problems and came here hoping others will pick up your baggage.
suns: Yes, your questions are too dumb for a PhD to spend any time on.
Now please leave me alone.
I’m not running. Just not stooping to your level.
Have you decided to change your name yet again? How many times has it been now?
By the way for people like you Pile High and Deeper is all YOU are!
The very words you wrote David is in itself incorrect since the Ocean water is definitely alkaline NOT acidic.
“The acidity of the oceans is increasing — by 30% since the Industrial Revolution.”
You should have written this way to make sense:
The Alkalinity of the oceans is decreasing by 30% since the industrial revolution.
But you are so gosh smart!
If alkallinity decreases, acidity decreases.
Have you ever taken an chemistry class in your life? Maybe, perhaps, in high school?
Marine chemistry is a direct function of acidity.
Yawn…………,
Still can’t face the fact that you wrote it wrong.
The ocean waters are ALKALINE therefore it is not acidic therefore saying it is 30% more acidic is not correct.
It is less alkaline is what you should have written.
pOH = 14 – pH
If pH falls, then pOH rises. I take it the “acidity decreases” is a typo
RE: David Appell – “If alkallinity decreases, acidity decreases.”
Bwahahahaha. You need to upgrade your PhD
If basicity decreases, acidity increases. There, I fixed it for you again
Now how many more OH- than H+ ions are there in the oceans?
So you deny the oceans have an acidity.
THAT’s your position? Really?
RE: David Appell – “So you deny the oceans have an acidity. THAT’s your position? Really?”
No, that is not my position, sir, and you know it. The oceans have both acidity and basicity.
Is your position that there are more H+ ions than OH- ions in the Earth’s oceans? I hope not.
How many more OH- ions than H+ ions are in the Earth’s oceans Mr. Appell?
Andy: ocean acidity has increased by 30% since the industrial revolution.
This increase, which shows no signs of stopping, is what has scientists and fisheries so concerned.
Now how many more OH- than H+ ions are there in the oceans?
It follows from (1) the definiton of pH, (2) the decline in oceanic pH, and (3) the mass of the oceans.
It’s a trivial high school exercise. If you can’t do even that, let us know.
Ben: My position is that ocean acidity has increased 30% since the Industrial Revolution.
This is a fact. No disputes.
With attendant consequences.
The pH of the ocean is about 7.9. It is not acid and it hasn’t changed.
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
RE: David Appell – “It’s a trivial high school exercise. If you can’t do even that, let us know.”
Did it. Now what. We are supposed to be afraid that there are 158.5 times as many OH- ions as H+ ions?
You gotta love the truth, sir. I’ve been set free.
It doesn’t matter what you label the ocean, acid or base. And its pH is decreasing, with attendant consequences.
But, of course, it’s all because some guy in a NASA basement is — yet again — erasing 2’s and putting in 9’s.
Ben: Just how dumb are you?
The issue is, how is the ratio changing?
Can you understand that much, at least?
RE: David Appell – “The issue is, how is the ratio changing? Can you understand that much, at least?”
I understand the ratio is changing. I also understand that during the cretaceous, in a pH range of 5.5 to 7.6, over 90% of deposition was still limestone. The same is true for the vast majority of geologic epochs.
I’m not afraid David. The fossil and depositional evidence is clear. Read more, pontificate less.
Have you noticed, perhaps, that you’re not living during the Cretaceous?
That a quick swing of delta(pH)<-2 just might disrupt all life in the oceans who can't keep up?
Do you even care? Or do you only care about your heating bill, and the hell with the rest of the planet?
RE: David Appell – “Have you noticed, perhaps, that you’re not living during the Cretaceous?” Indeed I have.
RE: David Appell – “That a quick swing of delta(pH)<-2 just might disrupt all life in the oceans who can't keep up?"
Don't say might, say will. Take a stand sir. Do you believe that swing of delta(pH)<-2 will occur. You have peaked my interest.
RE: David Appell – "Do you even care?"
I do care…
RE: David Appell – "Or do you only care about your heating bill, and the hell with the rest of the planet?"
I care so little about my heating bill, that I run a homeless shelter using my abundance, to keep those less fortunate than me from freezing to death. No tax deduction. Is that enough care sir?
Next diversion please.
Due to the vast amounts of non-water chemicals in the ocean to view it as an over simplified chemical reaction is stupid. The oceans are a large and complex buffer solution of many and various chemical that vary not only with place and temperature but also time of the year and in many places time of day. This is not including the volcanic effects that are constantly occurring all over globe. Experiments into what is actually happening to CO2 in the oceans is still on-going. To think that mankind knows enough about how this extremely complex living system works, by the application of schoolboy chemistry, is the thoughts of a fool.
Yep that is the alkalinity explaination I was talking about earlier! Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha……
sunsettommy,
It is clear to me that if alkalinity drops then acidity increases regardless of the what the original ph number was. You are being deliberately obtuse.
No if alkalinity drops it means there is less buffer in the solution to neutralize acids.
David with a foggy memory writes:
“suns: Yes, your questions are too dumb for a PhD to spend any time on.
Now please leave me alone.”
I did not wrote those question you dumbass,those were written by Steve and STILL you avoid answering either one.
What a sad guy you are.
Yes — even a PhD can’t keep up with all the stupidity here.
Now please go pick on someone at your own degree level.
Instead of addressing the obvious fraud going on at NOAA and GISS, you simply lash out in a mindless effort to protect your investments.
Yes PH.D holder like you was shown to be a dumbass anyway.
By the way this is right back at you………..
NOW GO PICK ON SOMEONE AT YOUR OWN DEGREE LEVEL.
Why are you still here David, when you will not answer questions and you will not comment without putting your eco warmist bullshit between every letter you write.
If you want your accusations to be taken seriously, you’ll have to make them openly, instead of hiding behind a fake name. That’s the way of the world, and the world will view you as a cowardly nobody until you do.
I’m sorry, but that’s the facts.
As a journalist I’d love to prove fraud somewhere, anywhere. But you aren’t man enough to take seriously.
Jealous of a PhD.
Yes, I’ve seen it before.
RE: David Appell – “If alkallinity decreases, acidity decreases”
RE: David Appell – “Yes — even a PhD can’t keep up with all the stupidity here.”
Try keeping up with yourself first, genius?
Interesting conversation.
From the impression I have now of Mr. Appell, if his level of curiosity is indicative of climate science PhD’s…….no wonder we are in such deep do do with their research.
Helps explain why Marcott did such a crappy job in his last paper.
Maybe this summer the St Roch can once again sail the North West Passage, using the same route as 1944? So far, even with last years low extent, that passage has remained closed.
Aw…..yes…..but don’t let historical relevance cloud your thinking Mr. Appell……please don’t.
(Yes, I am sure that somewhere in that great mind of yours you can think. After all you ARE breathing…….right?)
As I wrote above, I’ve seen PhD-envy before. I never quite know how to deal with it….
A lot of people enter graduate school — few come out. Perhaps that was your situation, but don’t take it personally.
Not everyone is of PhD material.
If you are an example of modern education – oh dear how standards have dropped.
Go on accuse ME of envy!
“The next ice age is toast, unless humans decide they want it by sucking CO2 out of the air and sequesting it.”
Still besotted with the CAGW conjecture which is still unverified.
“Every since one of you would, if humanity suddenly had to decamp to Mars, decide to make it more hospitable by thickening it atmosphere. The absolute first method you would decide upon is emitting CO2 and water vapor, the very same things that cause warming on Earth.”
Mars atmosphere is already 95% CO2
But you are so gosh darn smart!
Mars atmosphere is already 95% CO2
Lookup its density.
Then, report back here.
I know it already,
but YOU are the PH.D guy who cant even make a decent teaching comment over it.
That is part of the reason why I pick on you so much.
sunset: Your anonymous opinion doesn’t matter in the least.
OK?
Get it?
David,
Explain for us non phds
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg
Surface temperature depends on more than atmospheric CO2 content.
Next?
That is all you can bring up?
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
He ASKED you explain it but that means you would have to know something to offer in detail.
sunset: I told you — get lost. You can’t compete.
Jealous of a PhD.
Yes, I’ve seen it before.
You have……………………..?
So THAT is why you are here!
David Appell with a PH.D in his back pocket but can’t use it spends a lot of time here trying to fit in but alas he sticks out like a sore thumb because is an ass!:
“I said — it’s an utterly amazing paradox.
Let’s call it the “Goddard* Paradox.”
The asterick is to indicate the fake name.”
LOL,
I have not seen a PH.D holder spend so much time in a general public blog where you write a lot of words but with little substance and is obsessed with names yet never intended to produce constructive comments the entire time because he is a lonely man who can’t get out of the basement.
Do you have borderline Personality Disorder?
You’re finally getting the picture — it’s dumb for someone as smart as me to spend much time on someone like you.
Yeah and you reply me over and over and over in the last few months anyway despite that it is often you do NOT like what I write but still…………………
You are dumb shit……. actually.
Personality Hubris Disorder, my PHD is bigger than your PHD.
RE: David Appell – “The absolute number of ions doesn’t matter. Their ratio does.”
Current average earth ocean pH = 8.1
-log[H+] = 8.1
log[H+] = -8.1
H+ = 10^(-8.1) = 7.94 X 10^-9 mol/L
-log[OH-] = 5.9
log[OH-] = -5.9
OH- = 10^(-5.9) = 1.26 X 10^-6 mol/L
Ratio [OH-] / [H+] = 158.5
How’s that professor? There are 158 times as many OH- ions as H+ ions.
Yawn… I for one will sleep very well tonight. I recommend you do the same.
Next diversion?
Nurse! he’s ready for bed.
Now just sit still Dav the nurse will be right along.
Good-nite
Davids snobbery in full view:
“sunset: I told you — get lost. You can’t compete.”
So you are here to compete why not go visit the Mensa forum and try to impress someone there.
I dare you.
Sunset: You are done here. Get it?
Are YOU done being an ass and a snob yet?
Run out of meds again?
Appell is just another no-nothing blatherer. He is not even interesting to mock.
Will,
I honestly enjoyed answering Mr Appell’s questions as much as he enjoyed not answering mine.
🙂
Appell, if we are counting PHDs, over nine thousand have firmly stated that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not a disaster, and likely in balance beneficial. So, you are a distinct minority, unless you can find anywhere near nine thousand PHDs that state anthropogenic CO2 is an unmitigated disaster to the planet. Many of your statements are deeply ignorant, but what is more astounding is they are exceeded by your arrogance. Please consider to change because that (“the only thing to exceed his ignorance was his arrogance”) would be a shame to be inscribed on your tumbstone.
Those 9000 included Fred Flintstone and Ginger Spice, and didn’t even include their full names or institutional affiliations.
OISM was counting on people like you being unthinking suckers who accepted whatever they threw up. And you fell for it completely. Dummy.
They have been removed shortly afterwards as explained in that site but Perry Mason is a real scientist and stays on the list.
Once again you are employing feeble baloney.
From Tom Nelson –
Quark Soup by David Appell: Marcott Reax
At the same time, while I don’t think this kind of raw denialism will ever go away completely, I get the sense their [climate realists] heart isn’t in it anymore. [Hey David: While you have absolutely no idea where my heart is, I am completely confident that I know where your head is.]
David is back and posted some more:
“Ha. Who do you think pays for CO2science.org?
They thank you for being a sucker.”
Another big oil funding canard diversion employed by our resident PH.D snob.since he can’t deal with science claims in the two links so he use the diversion attempt for the stupid funding canard as his escape.
It would have been smarter if you didn’t comment at all.
Meanwhile he ignores the first link since he was too busy beating up the CO2 link he did not read:
“Try some reading (preferably after you’ve had your meds) –
http://pindanpost.com/2011/11/27/clams-cant-read/”
Ciao!
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
There is nothing quite like a sea-ice increase to set off
another day-long food fight in the ranks.
Have a good one, guys.
HL
I wonder if Appell gets paid by the post?
That would be the only shred of evidence that he has any intelligence at all.
http://modernviking.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/lying_statistics_of_climate_change_denial/
This is what I posted at modernvikings blog:
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 16, 2013 at 2:00 pm
A good presentation you have made here but you have missed his point.
He has shown in other blog posts the undeniable declines and even the NOAA animations showing the main cause on the loss of MULTIPLE year old ice cover that occurred from the late 1980′s to the mid 1990′s.This is why we now see large swings in the loss and gain of year old ice in recent years because there is much less older thicker ice around to resist the winds breaking ice up effect.
The Arctic ice mass is much less stable than it used to be.”
Will he approve it?
@sunsettommy – I wondered the same thing about @stevengoddard when I posted a link to my “blog” (with all of 2 entries it’s not much of a blog, but it is what it is). Seems neither of us are afraid to open ourselves up to critical or opposing points of view. That’s a good thing! Thanks for visiting – Cheers, MV
Ywoza says,
“sunsettommy,
It is clear to me that if alkalinity drops then acidity increases regardless of the what the original ph number was. You are being deliberately obtuse.”
Really?
what I wrote is factually correct and no I never contested the 30% claim itself but that he adopts the media’s scaremongering tactic by making it appear that the ocean is acidic when actually it is strongly alkaline.
Here is what David wrote:
“The acidity of the oceans is increasing — by 30% since the Industrial Revolution.”
No hint of the true state of the oceans PH level which is strongly Alkaline.The average reader who knows nothing about this fact may get a false impression in thinking the ocean is already acidic and increasingly more now by 30%
David A. who should know better was deliberately misleading and that is why I pointed out the fact the Ocean water are strongly ALKALINE.
Now you still think I am the one who is deceptive and obtuse?
LOL
PhD’s aren’t long on logic these days.
For oceans to become “more acidic”, they would first have to become acidic. You don’t say that a black object is getting whiter.
No wonder they are so very confused. 😆
30% is used rather than the actual numbers because it sounds scary.
And “ocean acidification” is used for the same reason, it sounds scary. Admitting truthfully that the ph has changed slightly just doesn’t keep the kiddies and knuckle draggers up at night.
The reason they are being so shrill right now is because this whole chicken little scam is about over. And just like little babies, they scream and cry as their favorite pacifier goes into the trash bin.
Maybe they will grow up and learn how to communicate without that useless garbage in their mouths.
sunsettommy,
Appell repeated that the ocean is alkaline, but it is also becoming more acidic — he even gave ph numbers. You are playing petty mind games, deliberately twisting his meaning and playing the victim. Dishonest tactics.
Appell conveniently ignores the actual data, which shows that he has no idea what he is talking about.
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
An aquarium? You base your understanding of the ocean’s changing alkalinity on what happens at one aquarium?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Now you are pissing me off because David DID NOT originally give the PH numbers Ben did that and David then babbled over them afterwards.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/arctic-blows-away-the-old-record-for-winter-ice-growth/#comment-203184
My argument was over his comment which was long before he and Ben had their argument on the PH numbers and ratio’s.Again I repeat what David wrote that was misleading and that YOU never admit it because you are an idiot!
Quoting David A.
“The acidity of the oceans is increasing — by 30% since the Industrial Revolution.”
My position still stands.
Sunsettommy,
Ocean acidification in a geoengineering context
Phillip Williamson1,2,* and Carol Turley3the
“Release of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere and subsequent flux into the ocean has reduced the global average surface pH by approximately 0.1 unit, equivalent to approximately 30 per cent increase in H+ concentrations [8]. Since 1990, surface ocean pH has directly been measured or calculated at several locations, with the average recent decrease estimated as 0.0019 pH units per year at the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT; close to the site of long-term atmospheric CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa) [12]; 0.0017 per year based on transects in the North Pacific [13]; 0.0012 per year at the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series (BATS) [14] and 0.0017 per year at the European Station for Time-Series in the Ocean at the Canary Islands (ESTOC) [15]”\
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405667/.
Sunsettommy: “The ocean waters are ALKALINE therefore it is not acidic therefore saying it is 30% more acidic is not correct.”
tommy, could you please read the title of the paper posted above. Or, if you prefer, read the multiple references to ocean acidification in the study itself. Or review the 2,600,000 references to the phrase “ocean acidification” in Google.
Do you still stand by your position? In any case, Appell’s meaning was clear enough — just as it was clearly your intention to be obtuse and play petty grammar games..
Major Aquariums around the world will be almost the only sites that have continuous seawater pH testing cos they want to keep their fish alive. Weather stations don’t typically measure pH, just tides etc. A few marine biology university sites may, James Cook being one. Steve’s reference, especially to Monterey where the adjacent Pacific Ocean depth is great and the incoming sea water more globally representative than other shallow coastal marine zones, is perfectly valid and accurate. pH of @ 7.9 is alkaline, no question about it. You can’t argue with a pH meter.
From the 2009 report Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef funded by the Oz govt.
“About half of this anthropogenic CO2 (carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, rather than natural processes) is in the upper 10 per cent of oceans (less than 1000 metres depth) due to slow ocean mixing processes.
This absorbed CO2 is resulting in chemical changes in the ocean, and is estimated to have caused a decrease in oceanic pH of 0.1. This is referred to as ocean acidification as the oceans are becoming more acidic (though technically they are still alkaline).
From a current pH of 8.2 (alkaline), it is predicted that the ocean’s pH could fall to about 7.8 (still slightly alkaline) by 2100.”
For technical professionals, alkaline is the correct term!
For politicians, “ocean acidification” is the newly invented description.
Andy,
In regards to the single aquarium measuring water down to 50 feet, the continuous measurements of ph are nice but not vital. A statistical analysis over a multi-year period utilizing multiple sites at multiple depths will give a far better view of the bigger picture.
These technical journals below (part of a much bigger trove) contradict your assertion regarding how technical professionals speak. In any case, Mr Appell’s meaning was clear and, in my opinion, you all sound like Clinton saying it all depends on what “is” is.
Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification
O Hoegh-Guldberg, PJ Mumby, AJ Hooten, RS Steneck… – science, 2007 – sciencemag.org
[TXT] from mblwhoilibrary.org
Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
JC Orr, VJ Fabry, O Aumont, L Bopp, SC Doney… – Nature, 2005 – nature.com
[PDF] from unc.edu
Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem
SC Doney, VJ Fabry, RA Feely, JA Kleypas – Marine Science, 2009 – annualreviews.org
[CITATION] Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers. A Guide for Future Research. Report of a workshop sponsored by NSF, NOAA …
JA Kleypas, RA Feely, VJ Fabry, C Langdon… – 2006 – citeulike.org
[HTML] from oxfordjournals.org
Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes
VJ Fabry, BA Seibel, RA Feely… – ICES Journal of …, 2008 – icesjms.oxfordjournals.org
[PDF] from bioexpress.ac.cn
Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification
JM Hall-Spencer, R Rodolfo-Metalpa, S Martin… – Nature, 2008 – nature.com
[HTML] from pnas.org
Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders
KRN Anthony, DI Kline, G Diaz-Pulido… – Proceedings of the …, 2008 – National Acad Sciences
[HTML] from geoscienceworld.org
Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification
JB Ries, AL Cohen, DC McCorkle – Geology, 2009 – intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org
[PDF] from reinat.com
Decreased abundance of crustose coralline algae due to ocean acidification
IB Kuffner, AJ Andersson, PL Jokiel, KS Rodgers… – Nature …, 2007 – nature.com
[PDF] from uni-kiel.de
[PDF] Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
J Raven, K Caldeira, H Elderfield, O Hoegh-Guldberg… – 2005 – eprints.uni-kiel.de
“You’re finally getting the picture — it’s dumb for someone as smart as me to spend much time on someone like you.” thats why you are spending a lot of time here?
Yer refering to Toshinmack, I guess? 😆
People who announce their intelligence are usually lacking in same. They certainly don’t act like paid Media Matter agitators throwing out juvenile comments just to harass people.
Looked at David Appell’s site. I recommend anyone who has interviewed people and run companies…… notice ONLY 3 years at Bell Labs, then ONE year at Gold (startup ??) and ONE year at MCI….. that is a REALLY short period in all of his early jobs….. usually indicates a trouble
maker or someone not very good at their job……. THEN please notice he goes on to WRITING about everything……. those who cant do, write. David’s obvious snobbery about having a PhD covers for a very insecure person with a fast mouth and little deep seated talent.
You have no idea why some of his jobs were short and was this really that unusual for those companies?
Getting this personal with him is not a good idea because you are attacking him instead of what he writes that many of us this is bad material.
Better to stay on topic and respond to what he writes here.
“These technical journals below (part of a much bigger trove) contradict your assertion regarding how technical professionals speak.”
That is model driven drivel alarmist-speak. We have seen the “peer” review in action with the latest fraudulent hockey stick.
The peer of an alarmist is an alarmist.
What in the world are you talking about?
The issue was about how the phrase “ocean acidification” was misleading. Poster’s here used that phrase to deliberately avoid Appell’s point that ocean’s were becoming less alkaline due to an increased absorption of CO2. Apparently, they were confused by the phrase and said that only “non-technical people” like politicians used the phrase.
Obviously, that is not true.
Sorry you cannot keep up. Blame Bush.
Keep up? You jump into a thread talking about who-knows-what and then offer a flippant remark that relates to nothing.
I’ve seen your comprehension issues throughout this thread. I’m sorry you relied on the public school system, blame Bush.
And for you, I will blame meth amphetamine and attention deficit disorder.
And, not that it matters, but for your edification, I am an early graduate (with honors) of an ivy league school who was head hunted before graduation specifically for my technical comprehension.
I can always spot a youngster. Classical education died around three decades ago, and anyone under about 35 has very little chance of being able to think on their own. Your headhunters saw a compliant worker, and not a deep thinker, as schools no longer teach kids how to think but rather what to think. Your whole life you have been taught that AGW is real and the science settled.
I’m sorry you have been handicapped by a failed school system. Blame Bush.
You are a train wreck of non-nonsensical information.
Your lack of reasoning skills only makes it appear so. My fellow skeptics are having no issue following my thread, but then they have acquired critical thinking skills that you were denied.
Blame Bush.
I agree with Gator here that you are way behind the curce.
I never disputed Davids claim of reducing Alkalininity of the ocean waters,what I did was correct his misleading statement that you have yet to comprehend:
“The acidity of the oceans is increasing — by 30% since the Industrial Revolution.”
One of myresponses:
“Yawn…………,
Still can’t face the fact that you wrote it wrong.
The ocean waters are ALKALINE therefore it is not acidic therefore saying it is 30% more acidic is not correct.
It is less alkaline is what you should have written.”
Finished being dumb yet?
Turns out Manabe predicted, in 1991, increasing Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf
(see page 795)
Well how stupid of Hansen to have predicted maximum ice loss in the Weddell Sea.
As my good friend Jeff put it so ‘eloquently’ 2 years ago…
“Red Jeff says:
July 25, 2011 at 11:21 pm
I’ve had this argument before, at an alarmist site, before I was banned. Here is what I said…
… there is a reason chemists don’t use a percentage scale for pH. It’s meaningless. Pure and simple. The scale is logorithmic, exponential. As in other scales: richter, decibel, stellar magnitude, photographic f-stop, thermodynamic entropy, an understanding can only be mathematically understood if you have an understanding of logorithms.
For instance… a solution of pH[1] has 100,000,000,000,000 times more hydrogen ions (acidity) than a solution of pH[14]. If I had a solution at pH of 8.5 the hydrogen ion content would be 3.2 x 10exp(-9) M. A 30% increase in hydrogen ion content is 4.2 x10exp(-9)M. Converting this to pH becomes… wait for this… 8.4!!!!! Yes you guessed it, nothing to write home about. It doesn’t sound half as threatening as 30% does it!?! Kinda’ makes a mockery of percentage with respect to pH, doesn’t it. Then again as you say yourself and I wholeheartedly agree…it’s “Widely accepted language (here are over 200 articles in Nature that use this language). 7th grade science indeed.” Indeed, indeed sir.
Addendum…. Now I know I’m just an evil oil shill lackey, scientificly moronic, ununderstanding, conspiracy driven republican pontificating the tea party line…. (at least according to ‘CookieMonster’ Jon Cook). So if you dont believe me, unlike the climalological societies of lore, acting as St. Peter at the gates of knowledge… please be my guest and calculate the numbers yourself. Here is the simplest link I could find, even the monkey who outguessed NASA’s hurricane prediction could understand http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryquickreview/a/phreview.htm Thank you Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Thank you for listening to my rant…. Have a nice day! Jeff
Am I wrong?”
Ocean acidification is a myth.
It would require nearly a “2000%” lowering in pH to reach 7.0 or neutrality. Not to mention the Earth has been through the changes we have see of late before, so it is nothing new and nothing alarming.