Plan to dump iron into the oceans to capture carbon.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Covered by 90% dead corrals...

Waiting to see whether 2024 El Nino is strong or weak.... perhaps there are early signs in Arica?

The coral regrowth in the the recent years coincided with triple dip La Nina years..

we are expecting bush fires this summer in Sydney

El Niño is back – that's good news or bad news, depending on where you live

The official forecast calls for a strong El Niño by winter, but other models suggest it might dip in and out. An atmospheric scientist explains.

theconversation.com

Quote from RobertBryant

Waiting to see whether 2024 El Nino is strong or weak.... perhaps there are early signs in Arica?

The coral regrowth in the the recent years coincided with triple dip La Nina years..

we are expecting bush fires this summer in Sydney

https://theconversation.com/el…-on-where-you-live-205974

Arica has been hit hard in the past when “El Niño” events happen, with hotter and more wet weather when the Humboldt current weakens, but so far this year we are having a colder than usual spring, ironically, and we had a “cold” (for this subtropical latitude) winter.

Quote from RobertBryant

Waiting to see whether 2024 El Nino is strong or weak.... perhaps there are early signs in Arica?

Warmest September (2023) ever in CH,DE,AU :: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/ge…sungen-1881-19209652.html

Only 3.9C above average...

Weather is not climate. The Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic explosion increased total atmospheric water vapor by 10%. That’s a helluva lot of a GHG that is 10x more potent than CO2. This came at a most inopportune time as a rare three plus year La Niña preceding this. The usual suspects are claiming Antarctica has hit record lows this in sea ice extent but despite nasa noaa and corporate media repeating this claim, I looked up the actual data. In 1966 the Antarctic sea ice extent was 16m km2 and yet now they are claiming that the current 17.1m km2 is a “record low”. I’m all in for finding a replacement for fossil fuels but the extremism on this issue does much more harm than good.

Quote from Daniel_G

The usual suspects are claiming Antarctica has hit record lows this in sea ice extent but despite nasa noaa and corporate media repeating this claim,

As Antarctic sea ice continues its dramatic decline, we need more measurements and much better models to predict its future

Some scientists have suggested this year could mark a regime shift for Antarctic sea ice

www.downtoearth.org.in

As usual only your arguments are suspect. You obviously like to spread big oil fuss.

This is the sad reality statistics since end 1978. We only have satellite data since 1979. So may be its up to you to provide your source that claims even lower coverage.... May be some wale catcher post cards....

Or official site: https://www.theweathernetwork.…d-low-for-the-second-year

May be you mix up the minimum of the maximum....with the minimum of the minimum...

Hello Jurge,

I wish we could have more meaningful debates and conversations. I don't make it a habit to state things that are false, as what drives me is truth and objectivity. We can disagree with each other and show our work and sometimes we may learn from each other. I actually respect you and your work very much. Let's say its been influential for me.

The IEEE paper published in 2014 shows that NIMBUS data was able to be used to derive earlier sea ice extent data and the results show that the minimum in 1966 was 15.9m km2. Whenever you look at any data set relating to climate over the years I have learned to check the time periods covered as most likely these are cherry picked periods used to make data fit a narrative.

The best policy and path forward for humanity is logically fully dependent upon the best unbiased data and currently the pendulum is swinging too far. My only goal is objectivity and diversity in opinions serves to bolster scientific objectivity. So I am happy to discuss these issues with you openly. I might post something that seems strange simply because I have three day jobs and don't have time to show my work. I am happy to share my sources with you so we can discuss.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140017193/downloads/20140017193.pdf

IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 7, NO. 3, MARCH 2014 881

Anomalous Variability in Antarctic Sea Ice Extents

During the 1960s With the Use of Nimbus Data David W. Gallaher, G. Garrett Campbell, and Walter N. Meier

Abstract—The Nimbus I, II, and III satellites provide a new op- portunity for climate studies in the 1960s. The rescue of the visible and infrared imager data resulted in the utilization of the early Nimbus data to determine sea ice extent. A qualitative analysis of the early NASA Nimbus missions has revealed Antarctic sea ice extents that are signi¿cant larger and smaller than the his- toric 1979–2012 passive microwave record. The September 1964 ice mean area is 19.7x10 km ± 0.3x10 km . This is more the 250,000 km greater than the 19.44x10 km seen in the new 2012 historic maximum. However, in August 1966 the maximum sea ice extent fell to 15.9x10 km ± 0.3x10 km . This is more than 1.5x10 km below the passive microwave record of 17.5x10 km set in September of 1986. This variation between 1964 and 1966 represents a change of maximum sea ice of over 3x10 km in just two years. These inter-annual variations while large, are small when compared to the Antarctic seasonal cycle.

Quote from Daniel_G

but the extremism on this issue

extremism is one those political words..

Quote from Daniel_G

meaningful debates

the extreme deception about the link btw global warning/fossil fuel burning

did big oil's sales no harm..

Our analysis shows that, in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil scientists (i) accurately projected and skillfully modeled global warming due to fossil fuel burning; (ii) correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age; (iii) accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected; and (iv) reasonably estimated how much CO₂ would lead to dangerous warming. Yet, whereas academic and government scientists worked to communicate what they knew to the public, ExxonMobil worked to deny it

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

also... there is a lawsuit...extremist???... maybe..

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/16/1199974919/california-oil-lawsuit-climate-change

I define extremism as the blind pursuit of narrow goals without fully comprehending the full effects and costs.

Perhaps another word???????? extremist to .. me..... means bombs

"Extremists oppose the basic and human rights described in the Basic Law, such as the right of free expression. They also oppose fundamental principles of democracy, such as the sovereignty of the people and the independence of the courts."

Officers from the Western Australia state security investigation group on Tuesday morning arrested three protesters who had trespassed onto the Perth home of Woodside Energy’s chief executive, Meg O’Neill —a demonstration Woodside said was deliberately designed to intimidate her and her family.

Protesters charged over stench gas attack on Woodside Energy headquarters
Read more

O’Neill said she thanked police for their swift response, stating this was not a “harmless protest”.

“It was designed to threaten me, my partner and our daughter in our home.”

However, environmental lobby group, Disrupt Burrup Hub, which was behind yesterday’s action, in a media release accused Woodside of “hiding behind a dozen counter-terror [sic] police” who had intercepted a peaceful protest by a 19-year-old climate campaigner.

The three arrested demonstrators were subsequently charged, and Western Australia police later in the day arrested a further two campaigners.

“Such acts by extremists should be condemned by anyone who respects the law and believes people should be safe to go about their business at home and at work,” added O’Neill.

Jacques Ruer..

4 degrees ist...

TM 1.52

Quote from Daniel_G

The IEEE paper published in 2014 shows that NIMBUS data was able to be used to derive earlier sea ice extent data and the results show that the minimum in 1966 was 15.9m km2.

IF you cite old papers then you also should cite the error in the old Nimbus data that was not based on RADAR.

More intelligent people than the petrol mafia usually pays did compare the old Nimbus data with the new RADAR based ones. There you clearly see that the old data is in average about 3 mio. sqkm off = under estimates the ice coverage by millions sqkm's.

So next time when you spread big oil FUD first ask yourself why you must do it!

Well Folks, there’s a reason why we don’t allow discussion of global warming, now global climate change, in the forum, and is precisely because of this: it is a divisive issue, and there are entrenched positions that can’t be reconciled. Let’s focus on LENR, which eventually will help making the problem moot.

Quote from Wyttenbach

IF you cite old papers then you also should cite the error in the old Nimbus data that was not based on RADAR.

More intelligent people than the petrol mafia usually pays did compare the old Nimbus data with the new RADAR based ones. There you clearly see that the old data is in average about 3 mio. sqkm off = under estimates the ice coverage by millions sqkm's.

So next time when you spread big oil FUD first ask yourself why you must do it!

Display More

What is the full reference of the paper you cited? I’m interested to read the entire paper.

I didn’t actually cite the old paper. I cited the IEEE 2014 paper based in the reanalysis of the original data using modern data processing systems. The paper is very good science from a very credible organization.

Please avoid further discussion of that topic, this thread is about iron for promoting algae growth, and not the more broader and divisive topic that we remind is one of the topics we prefer discussed elsewhere than in the forum.

Quote from Curbina

this thread is about iron for promoting algae growth,

algal growth may be restored by iron...

subject to decades and $million of research

but definitely not the sea ice..

the dramatic reduction in extent in the last decades by something like the size of Europe

4 million sq km

will not be reversed with iron engineering,,,unfortunately...

Quote from Daniel_G

What is the full reference of the paper you cited?

Sorry forgot it: https://diablobanquisa.wordpre…rctic_sea_ice_1960s_2018/

Thanks. Interesting paper. Diatoms are a good thing to increase. For many reasons. Their population has fallen most likely due to inadequate wastewater treatment. We should spend some of those renewable energy trillions on upgrading wwtp around the world

Quote from Curbina

Well Folks, there’s a reason why we don’t allow discussion of global warming, now global climate change, in the forum, and is precisely because of this: it is a divisive issue, and there are entrenched positions that can’t be reconciled. Let’s focus on LENR, which eventually will help making the problem moot.

Well, that sounds like just like all the other platforms out there, lets not debate the thing that is important, there is only one truth and for the sake of peace we will ignore it entirely and censor it. How is this a good thing?

also, artillery takes care of entrenched positions, so why stop now? The 'coov' was allowed to be debated endlessly and then some.
By NOT debating it, the lies will win out, meaning the ones that push this global idiotic agenda that they know nothing about and blame any normal person for a non existing issue. Most of you cannot even distinguish between weather, seasons, trends over years and actual climate change which can only ! be measure with some statistical significance over a period of at least 30 years. So any anomaly within a year or even a whole year, or even 10 years is not relevant at all. But I am sure some will try to ignore that nasty little fact and pretend they know all about it. Then the fact we only measured for a the shortest blip in time and the obvious mistakes and miscalculation and proven wrong models makes it only worse, but let's not talk about it indeed, it too controversial....

What progress will be made this way?! answer -> none whatsoever, just like in physics or LENR.

Edo , the issue for discouraging discussion of this topic here is not censorship, but keeping the focus of the forum.