Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Thursday 10.05.23

    We're nearly two weeks into fall, but many US cities won't be able to bask in the beauty of colder "sweater weather" for a while. New data shows that 2023 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history after an unseasonably warm September shattered heat records.

    Bob A (As Participant)


    getting quite chilly here in the prairies... already missing the short Canadian summer... not enough global warming, I guess...

    Comment


    • Statements
      on
      Negative Climate Change


      Statement 11 (Proposed)

      The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

      Support


      As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
      The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.

      Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2023-10-05 at 7.02.59 AM.png Views:	8 Size:	1.16 MB ID:	229667




      The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.


      Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

      CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

      Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

      Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

      Video [I think] - Post # 1800 - 23/10/5

      Processing

      There shall be one week for a Revision Challenge and/or an Opposition Challenge; Deadline: Friday, Oct. 13 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

      Bob A (As Group Secretary)



      Comment


      • Statements

        on

        Negative Climate Change (NCC)

        Click image for larger version

Name:	ClimateChange2.jpg
Views:	44
Size:	17.7 KB
ID:	229703


        Statements Update

        A. Statements (To # 11 - 23/10/6)


        Statement # 1

        Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

        Statement # 2

        Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

        Statement # 3

        “The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

        Statement # 4:

        Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

        Statement # 5

        Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

        Statement # 6

        For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.

        Statement # 7

        It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

        Statement # 8

        If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

        Statement # 9

        The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

        Support Reasons:
        Sid Belzberg – CT/NCC Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

        Statement # 10

        Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it, we would be a dead planet.

        Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg

        Greening of the Earth and its drivers

        Abstract

        Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004


        32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

        The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.


        Statement # 11 (Proposed)

        The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

        Support
        Reasons

        As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
        The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.
        [Chart – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5]
        The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.

        Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

        CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

        Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

        Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342


        Video [The Secretary is unsure] – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5

        Processing

        There shall be one week for a Revision Challenge and/or an Opposition Challenge; Deadline: Friday, Oct. 13 @ 11:59 PM EDT.


        [Part II below]

        Bob A (As Group Secretary)

        Comment


        • Negative Climate Change

          [Part II; Part I above]

          B. Rejected Statements (Not “generally accepted” within the CT'er group)

          Statement A

          Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

          Opposition Challenge 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1720 - 23/8/28

          I think statement A is outrageous.

          If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
          As the church lady says, "how convenient".

          I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

          So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.

          Opposition Challenge 2 - Bob Armstrong (As Participant) - Post # 1732 - 23/8/31

          Statement # 6 now is:

          Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
          [ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]


          Proposed Statement A is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2.

          But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Statement A! Recently moving into the 400 PPM range is a big spike in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many scientists see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

          Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

          https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

          So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

          I agree that Statement A is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

          Statement B

          There is no climate emergency.

          Opposition Challenge # 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1788 - 23/10/2

          "...it is not generally accepted under any reasonable definition of generally accepted.

          Court cases are now underway and winning to protect the environment.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXY..._channel=MSNBC

          Besides, where is the definition of "emergency"?"

          Opposition Challenge # 2 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1791 - 23/10/3

          "There IS a "climate emergency". Tons of material now exists in the public domain to this effect. Governments and private organizations (World Economic Forum) are sounding the alert. We are seeing the effects of climate change across the globe: wildfires; floods; landslides; rising sea levels; melting polar caps; etc. It is now well-accepted, both inside this group, and in the world at large, that it is likely the human species will be unable to adapt to this new increasingly hostile environment, and will go extinct.

          What other definition is there of an "emergency".

          The fact of this very thread shows that there is NO general acceptance within this group (This is Post # 1,791!! and BOTH sides are posting their little hearts out).......there IS raging controversy

          This Statement is both wrong, and not generally accepted by this group."

          Opposition Challenge # 3 - Pargat Perrer - Post # 1792 - 23/10/3

          "Just this past week, New York City suffered floods due to precipitation levels not seen in a single day since 1948. That's 75 bleeping years. The extent of the widespread damages is still being worked out.

          Guess what that is going to do to property insurance rates in New York City?

          Property Insurance companies are the canary in the coal mine; if you want to know whether we are in a climate emergency, follow the falling fortunes of the biggest property insurers and of their customers. Never mind what CO2 levels might have been hundreds of thousands of years ago."


          [Secretary Note: These Statements have been found, within their group, to be “Generally Accepted” , or not, by a group of Canadian Tournament Chess players [Representing the Spectrum re partisan politics and opinion on the issue], on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics Forum):

          https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...ss-discussion- board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc).

          Bob A (As Group Secretary)

          Comment


          • ChessTalk

            Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

            (Started: 21/12/9)

            Click image for larger version

Name:	image_2949.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	17.7 KB
ID:	229706

            Weekly Overview

            A. Weekly Stats:

            Week # 39 (23/9/25 – 10/1, 2023 [7 days])

            Views
            .....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
            Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day

            Views/Day........Views/Day.............(39 wks.)___________

            ........38....................35.........................37....................44

            Responses (Posts)

            ......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

            ....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day


            Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (39 wks.)__________________

            .............1......................2.......................3...........................5.

            Analysis of Last Week's Stats

            Last week's stats are running close to both the prior week and the 2023 average so far.

            There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change of almost 40 CT'ers daily (Unless some come more than once per day).


            All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

            B.The Anthropogenicist Position

            The Pressing Climate Change Issue

            Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

            The core issue:

            The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

            BUT.....

            climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

            It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........


            The Time Line

            Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

            Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

            Our window of opportunity is fast closing.


            C. The Naturalist Position -Negative “Natural” Climate Change

            This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

            We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.


            D. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

            All sides have been trying to come up with accurate Statements on climate change, giving Support Reasons, that will gain general acceptance....we are using "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)".

            Under TCFP we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

            Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then all are free to post "Supplementary Support" or "Supplementary Challenge".

            As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her Challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger.

            The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the posting of the Proposed Statement.

            The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. Neither is the goal “consensus”. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted”.


            E. CT'ers' (Of all stripes) Immediate Tasks

            a. Statement/Revised Statement/Challenge

            Propose your idea for the majority to consider. You can also just post a Supplementary Support for a Statement, or, a Supplementary Challenge.

            Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements in layperson's terms"!


            b. Negative Climate Change Thread “Responses”

            There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

            This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses”. It seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.


            Note:

            1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
            2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2
            nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

            Bob A (As Participant)
            Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Friday, 6th October, 2023, 09:06 PM.

            Comment


            • Statements
              on
              Negative Climate Change


              Statement 11 (Proposed)

              The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

              Support Reason


              As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
              The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.

              Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2023-10-05 at 7.02.59 AM.png Views:	8 Size:	1.16 MB ID:	229667




              The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.


              Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

              CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

              Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

              Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

              Video [I think] - Post # 1800 - 23/10/5

              Processing

              6/7days of the one week for a Revision Challenge and/or an Opposition Challenge have now passed without any Challenge being launched yet; Deadline: Friday, Oct. 13 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

              Should there not be 2 Challenges by the deadline, Statement 11 will be generally accepted.

              Bob A (As Group Secretary)

              Comment



              • Statements
                on
                Negative Climate Change


                Statement 11 (Proposed)

                The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

                Support Reason


                As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
                The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.

                Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2023-10-05 at 7.02.59 AM.png Views:	8 Size:	1.16 MB ID:	229667




                The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.


                Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

                CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

                Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

                Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

                Video [I think] - Post # 1800 - 23/10/5

                Processing

                During the one week for a Revision Challenge and/or an Opposition Challenge, no CT'er came forward with a Challenge.

                Conclusion

                Statement 11 is generally accepted. It joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

                Bob A (As Group Secretary)








                Comment


                • Statements

                  on

                  Negative Climate Change (NCC)




                  Statements Update


                  Click image for larger version

Name:	ClimateChange2.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	17.7 KB
ID:	229814

                  A. Statements (To # 11 - 23/10/6)


                  Statement # 1

                  Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

                  Statement # 2

                  Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

                  Statement # 3

                  “The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

                  Statement # 4:

                  Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

                  Statement # 5

                  Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

                  Statement # 6

                  For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.

                  Statement # 7

                  It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

                  Statement # 8


                  If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

                  Statement # 9

                  The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

                  Support Reasons:
                  Sid Belzberg – CT/NCC Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

                  Statement # 10

                  Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it, we would be a dead planet.

                  Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg

                  Greening of the Earth and its drivers

                  Abstract

                  Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

                  https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004


                  32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

                  The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.


                  Statement # 11

                  The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

                  Support
                  Reason

                  As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
                  The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.
                  [Chart – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5]
                  The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.

                  Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

                  CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

                  Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

                  Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342


                  Video [The Secretary is unsure] – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5

                  [Part II below]


                  Bob A (As Group Secretary)

                  Comment


                  • Negative Climate Change

                    [Part II; Part I above]

                    B. Rejected Statements (Not “generally accepted” within the CT'er group)

                    Statement A

                    Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

                    Opposition Challenge 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1720 - 23/8/28

                    I think statement A is outrageous.

                    If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
                    As the church lady says, "how convenient".

                    I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

                    So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.

                    Opposition Challenge 2 - Bob Armstrong (As Participant) - Post # 1732 - 23/8/31

                    Statement # 6 now is:

                    Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
                    [ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]


                    Proposed Statement A is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2.

                    But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Statement A! Recently moving into the 400 PPM range is a big spike in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many scientists see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

                    Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

                    https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

                    So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

                    I agree that Statement A is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

                    Statement B

                    There is no climate emergency.

                    Opposition Challenge # 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1788 - 23/10/2

                    "...it is not generally accepted under any reasonable definition of generally accepted.

                    Court cases are now underway and winning to protect the environment.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXY..._channel=MSNBC

                    Besides, where is the definition of "emergency"?"

                    Opposition Challenge # 2 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1791 - 23/10/3

                    "There IS a "climate emergency". Tons of material now exists in the public domain to this effect. Governments and private organizations (World Economic Forum) are sounding the alert. We are seeing the effects of climate change across the globe: wildfires; floods; landslides; rising sea levels; melting polar caps; etc. It is now well-accepted, both inside this group, and in the world at large, that it is likely the human species will be unable to adapt to this new increasingly hostile environment, and will go extinct.

                    What other definition is there of an "emergency".

                    The fact of this very thread shows that there is NO general acceptance within this group (This is Post # 1,791!! and BOTH sides are posting their little hearts out).......there IS raging controversy

                    This Statement is both wrong, and not generally accepted by this group."

                    Opposition Challenge # 3 - Pargat Perrer - Post # 1792 - 23/10/3

                    "Just this past week, New York City suffered floods due to precipitation levels not seen in a single day since 1948. That's 75 bleeping years. The extent of the widespread damages is still being worked out.

                    Guess what that is going to do to property insurance rates in New York City?

                    Property Insurance companies are the canary in the coal mine; if you want to know whether we are in a climate emergency, follow the falling fortunes of the biggest property insurers and of their customers. Never mind what CO2 levels might have been hundreds of thousands of years ago."


                    [Secretary Note: These Statements have been found, within their group, to be “Generally Accepted” , or not, by a group of Canadian Tournament Chess players [Representing the Spectrum re partisan politics and opinion on the issue], on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics Forum):

                    https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...ss-discussion- board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc).


                    The group acknowledges that some of their statements may be incorrect, but it is the best they could do. Hopefully others will make any necessary corrections, when this list is circulated.]

                    Bob A (As Group Secretary)

                    Comment


                    • ChessTalk

                      Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

                      (Started: 21/12/9)

                      Weekly Overview

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	ClimateChange2.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	17.7 KB
ID:	229873

                      A. Weekly Stats:

                      Week # 41 (23/10/9 – 15, 2023 [7 days])

                      Views
                      .....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
                      Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day

                      Views/Day........Views/Day.............(41 wks.)___________

                      ........9....................36........................37....................44

                      Responses (Posts)

                      ......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

                      ....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day


                      Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (41 wks.)__________________

                      .............1......................1.......................3...........................5.

                      Analysis of Last Week's Stats

                      Interest in this thread is waning. One of the consequences is that some dubious Statements on Negative Climate Change have been passed as “generally accepted”, and are now part of the group's list of Statements. It may be that it is time to abandon the Statements Project of this group.

                      All sides of the issue have been free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!


                      B. The Anthropogenicist Position

                      The Pressing Climate Change Issue

                      Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

                      The core issue:

                      The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

                      BUT.....

                      climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

                      It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........


                      The Time Line

                      Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

                      Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

                      Our window of opportunity is fast closing.


                      C. The Naturalist Position -Negative “Natural” Climate Change

                      This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

                      We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.


                      D. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

                      All sides have been trying to come up with accurate Statements on climate change, giving Support Reasons, that will gain general acceptance....we are using "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)".

                      Under TCFP we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

                      Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then all are free to post "Supplementary Support" or "Supplementary Challenge".

                      As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her Challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger.

                      The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the posting of the Proposed Statement.

                      The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. Neither is the goal “consensus”. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted”
                      Note: for this format to work, there must be some serious interest and activity in the group. As noted above, it may be that this format no longer works for the group.]

                      E. CT'ers' (Of all stripes) Immediate Tasks

                      Negative Climate Change Thread “Responses”

                      There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

                      This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses”. It seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.


                      Note:

                      1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
                      2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2
                      nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

                      Bob A (As Participant)

                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • Negative Climate Change Thread

                        CT Group Process

                        Group Secretary Position now Open

                        Hi Guys (& any Gals):

                        I started this thread almost 2 years ago now (21/12/9).

                        For much of the latter 1/2 of this thread, I got volunteered, and was formally confirmed, for Group Secretary (when we decided we would produce "generally accepted" Statements on Negative Climate Change).

                        And this project of ours has been largely successful.......we now have a list of 11 Statements (None under current Challenge). Outsiders have commented that our list is quite educational ......... it has been a worthwhile project to spend our time on.

                        I, personally, feel that I have now paid my dues, and made a contribution above and beyond being a normal participant. And I now need some time back for my other projects.

                        I feel that without a Group Secretary, keeping track of processing Statements, the situation will become chaotic, things will be forgotten with no overseer, and this project will be in jeopardy.

                        So though I am resigning as group secretary (Effective one week from now: 11:59 PM on Wed., Oct.25; I will continue on as an ordinary participant), I feel that a nomination process should be held for one week to find a replacement for me........self-nomination volunteering is not only legitimate, but welcomed!

                        Bob A (About to terminate as Group Secretary)

                        Comment


                        • Negative Climate Change & Rising Water Levels

                          "Even as climate change is remaking the American map, prompting insurance companies to shed the risk posed by rising heat and water, those same companies have not stopped underwriting the oil-and-gas projects that are stoking that risk."

                          https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...+Weekly+Planet

                          Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

                          Comment


                          • ChessTalk

                            Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

                            (Started: 21/12/9)


                            Weekly Overview

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	ClimateChange2.jpg
Views:	21
Size:	17.7 KB
ID:	229947

                            A. Weekly Stats:

                            Week # 42 (23/10/16 – 22, 2023 [7 days])

                            Views
                            .....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
                            Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day

                            Views/Day........Views/Day.............(42 wks.)___________

                            ........7....................9........................35....................44

                            Responses (Posts)

                            ......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

                            ....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day


                            Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (42 wks.)__________________

                            .............1......................1.......................3...........................5.

                            Analysis of Last Week's Stats

                            Interest in this thread is really waning. Interest in the Statements Project of this group seems to be faltering, as no one has come forward to volunteer to act as Group Secretary (To shepherd Statements through our process).

                            Have all sides of the issue exhausted themselves? Is there no more new material to post?


                            B. The Anthropogenicist Position

                            The Pressing Climate Change Issue

                            Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

                            The core issue:

                            The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

                            BUT.....

                            climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

                            It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........


                            The Time Line

                            Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

                            Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

                            Our window of opportunity is fast closing.


                            C. The Naturalist Position -Negative “Natural” Climate Change

                            This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

                            We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.


                            D. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

                            All sides have been trying to come up with accurate Statements on climate change, giving Support Reasons, that will gain general acceptance....we are using "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)".

                            Under TCFP we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

                            Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then all are free to post "Supplementary Support" or "Supplementary Challenge".

                            As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her Challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger.

                            The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the posting of the Proposed Statement.

                            The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. Neither is the goal “consensus”. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted”.


                            [Note: for this format to work, there must be some serious interest and activity in the group. As noted above, it may be that this format no longer works for the group.]

                            E. CT'ers' (Of all stripes) Immediate Tasks

                            Negative Climate Change Thread “Responses”

                            There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

                            This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses”. It seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.


                            Note:

                            1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
                            2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2
                            nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

                            Bob A (As Participant)




                            Comment


                            • Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019

                              Julia R. Andreasen, Anna E. Hogg, and Heather L. Selley

                              Abstract. Antarctic Ice Shelves provide buttressing support to the ice sheet, stabilising the flow of grounded ice and its contribution to global sea levels. Over the past 50-years satellite observations have shown ice shelves collapse, thin and retreat, however, there are few measurements of the Antarctic wide change in ice shelf area. Here, we use MODIS satellite data to measure the change in ice shelf calving front position and area on 34 ice shelves in Antarctica, from 2009 to 2019. Over the last decade, a reduction in area on the Antarctic Peninsula (6,692.5 km2) and West Antarctica (5,563.1 km2), has been outweighed by area growth in East Antarctica (3,532.1 km2) and the large Ross and Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelves (14,027.9 km2). The largest retreat was observed on Larsen-C Ice Shelf where 5,916.6 km2 of ice was lost during an individual calving event in 2017, and the largest area increase was observed on Ronne Ice Shelf in East Antarctica, where gradual advance over the past decade (535.3 km2/yr) led to a 5,888.6 km2 area gain from 2009–2019. Overall, the Antarctic Ice Shelf area has grown by 5,304.5 km2 since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area. Our observations show that Antarctic Ice Shelves gained 660.6 Gt of ice mass over the decade whereas the steady state approach would estimate substantial ice loss over the same period, demonstrating the importance of using time-variable calving flux observations to measure change.
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	Nature Screenshot 2023-10-23 at 8.13.02 PM.png
Views:	14
Size:	970.3 KB
ID:	229958



                              Solving Climate with Marxism, doesn’t solve the weather. It solves for your freedom.
                              Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 23rd October, 2023, 08:15 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
                                Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019

                                Julia R. Andreasen, Anna E. Hogg, and Heather L. Selley

                                Abstract. Antarctic Ice Shelves provide buttressing support to the ice sheet, stabilising the flow of grounded ice and its contribution to global sea levels. Over the past 50-years satellite observations have shown ice shelves collapse, thin and retreat, however, there are few measurements of the Antarctic wide change in ice shelf area. Here, we use MODIS satellite data to measure the change in ice shelf calving front position and area on 34 ice shelves in Antarctica, from 2009 to 2019. Over the last decade, a reduction in area on the Antarctic Peninsula (6,692.5 km2) and West Antarctica (5,563.1 km2), has been outweighed by area growth in East Antarctica (3,532.1 km2) and the large Ross and Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelves (14,027.9 km2). The largest retreat was observed on Larsen-C Ice Shelf where 5,916.6 km2 of ice was lost during an individual calving event in 2017, and the largest area increase was observed on Ronne Ice Shelf in East Antarctica, where gradual advance over the past decade (535.3 km2/yr) led to a 5,888.6 km2 area gain from 2009–2019. Overall, the Antarctic Ice Shelf area has grown by 5,304.5 km2 since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area. Our observations show that Antarctic Ice Shelves gained 660.6 Gt of ice mass over the decade whereas the steady state approach would estimate substantial ice loss over the same period, demonstrating the importance of using time-variable calving flux observations to measure change.
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	Nature Screenshot 2023-10-23 at 8.13.02 PM.png
Views:	14
Size:	970.3 KB
ID:	229958



                                Solving Climate with Marxism, doesn’t solve the weather. It solves for your freedom.
                                Sid, your data maybe old......Antarctica is indeed melting, and at an alarming rate for 2023.

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YdU...el=NASAGoddard

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X