Single father, scientist, & engineer. Managed medical studies & NASA GISS project. I only respond to intelligent life. 💉I don't take experimental Medicine!
Joined August 2021
- Tweets38K
- Following5K
- Followers5.5K
- Likes69.1K
While, I appreciate Jim's engagement on the subject of Climate Change and the associated graph, he provided, I and the rest of the paleoclimate community can fined no evidence for his bull-shit-ola (the Russian word I have invented for bull S*).
In non-activist science, this is referred to a great big nothingburger.
While Antarctica is not uniformly “getting cooler,” and the main process driving its contribution to sea level rise is not surface air-temperature melting.
I don't know the Russian word for Bull Shit but let's say it's bullshitolia.
While I agree that the evidence is fairly uniform that Antarctica has been a net contributor to sea-level rise for thousands of years, it has been dominated by West Antarctica (especially the Amundsen Sea sector: Thwaites, Pine Island, and nearby glaciers).
As far as I know the dominant mechanism in the Amundsen sector is ocean-driven basal melting of floating ice shelves by relatively warm Circumpolar Deep Water. This thins the shelves, reduces buttressing, and lets grounded ice flow faster into the ocean. It does not require warm surface air temperatures over the ice sheet. Surface mass balance (snowfall minus melt/runoff) can even be positive while dynamic discharge dominates the net loss.
But as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with your imaginary anthropogenic warming.
"The collapse of West Antarctica could add several meters to sea level."
Agreed that the ice sheet could be sensitive to ocean heat, that sensitivity has operated in past warm intervals, and the present episode began under a mix of natural variability and later anthropogenic influence might have a slight effect; however, the evidence does not support this assertion and natural variability appears to be the most likely cause.
While Antarctica is not uniformly “getting cooler,” and the main process driving its contribution to sea level rise is not surface air-temperature melting.
I don't know the Russian word for Bull Shit but let's say it's bullshitolia.
While I agree that the evidence is fairly uniform that Antarctica has been a net contributor to sea-level rise for thousands of years, it has been dominated by West Antarctica (especially the Amundsen Sea sector: Thwaites, Pine Island, and nearby glaciers).
As far as I know the dominant mechanism in the Amundsen sector is ocean-driven basal melting of floating ice shelves by relatively warm Circumpolar Deep Water. This thins the shelves, reduces buttressing, and lets grounded ice flow faster into the ocean. It does not require warm surface air temperatures over the ice sheet. Surface mass balance (snowfall minus melt/runoff) can even be positive while dynamic discharge dominates the net loss.
But as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with your imaginary anthropogenic warming.
I've recreated Hansen's work, explained his predictions and shown how his pole predictions were a complete failure.
Clearly this verified and peer reviewed science is over Jim's head. Perhaps we should slow down for him.
🤔😆
Not at all we are still in the same period, are we not?
If you are having trouble following along, I have created a nice chart to help you with your deficiency.
daisy-dream-tango-xenon.grok…
I've recreated all of this work, all the data and sources as well for the stomata records. Feel free to download and reproduce any graph.
stomata-vs-ice-proxy-sb3.gro…
Natural variability seems like a more logical answer than volcanic activity and ff usage doesn't it.
Eocene paleoclimate records suggest CO2 of 1000-1500 ppm resulted from sustained geological processes like outgassing, reduced carbon burial, and temperature-dependent ocean-atmosphere exchange rather than single eruptions.
Interesting, and oddly similar to the common era.
Why don't we ever see time series of those 1980's products?
Seems like the last 2000 years would be more accurate given that the further back we go the less accurate the data. That's according to Mann of course.
