Antarctica is losing ice 6 times faster today than in 1980s

[longview]

Was this a veiled reference to Greta Thundberg? :2razz:

No! just efforts to make the data as agreeable as possible for those with an agenda.

 

[Buzz]

When the IPCC says,

What studies do you think they found disagreed with the model outputs? The physical science basis citations, included many from Otto 2013.
AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC
Addendum, Otto 2013 was written post IPCC AR5, and so could not be cited, but the work in the paper was likely part of the work
for IPCC AR5.

:roll:

Quit beating around the bush. You know damn well Otto 2013 was included in the IPCC AR5 report.

Please... quit lying about it.

 

[Media_Truth]

The money given to vaccine research is 200 times greater than the money given to crystal healing practitioners.

The money given to studying evolution is 200 times the money given to spontaneous generation theories.

Theres a reason for that.

Now, back to you accusing scientists at the Royal Society of lying because they get funds from somewhere.

I like to follow the money too --->

How the Koch Brothers Fund the Climate Change Denial Machine

 

[Buzz]

Once again, your memory is absolutely failing you.

The money to the AGW side is more than 200 times that of the money given to scientists trying to quantify the inconvenient variables.

Your problem is that you conscientiously block out of your mind who pays for all the data collection.

Who puts up all the satellites and builds and maintains the weather stations? Who drills cores out of the ancient ice? Who does all the data collection for pretty much all of climate science?

I know one thing for sure... it is not all the climate warming denialists in the world. Not at all.

 

[longview]

:roll:

Quit beating around the bush. You know damn well Otto 2013 was included in the IPCC AR5 report.

Please... quit lying about it.

Rechecking the publication dates you are correct by a few months.
It still raises the question of why the IPCC choose to place simulated output of models on equal footing
with observational based output?

 

[Lord of Planar]

:roll:

Quit beating around the bush. You know damn well Otto 2013 was included in the IPCC AR5 report.

Please... quit lying about it.

Probably one of the examples where they cherry picked information from, and disregarded what they didn't like.

 

[Threegoofs]

Rechecking the publication dates you are correct by a few months.
It still raises the question of why the IPCC choose to place simulated output of models on equal footing
with observational based output?

Centerpiece of his argument just destroyed?

No worries.

Longview will just continue on like it never happened.

I expect the claim about Otto to be repeated inside of 6 months.

Groundhog Day!

 

[longview]

Centerpiece of his argument just destroyed?

No worries.

Longview will just continue on like it never happened.

I expect the claim about Otto to be repeated inside of 6 months.

Groundhog Day!

What center piece? The IPCC had the results of Otto,
and choose to place simulation based output on equal footing as observation based output.

 

[code1211]

Nothing to see here, Folks. Global warning is a hoax. Look, it's snowing! The earth is cooling.

cough cough

Antarctica is losing ice 6 times faster today than in 1980s



Must be all that liberal hot air. Yeah, that's it.

In passing, I've been seeing threads with titles like this one since I first became involved in debate boards.

You'd almost think that the ice down there might have been melting away by now.

Antarctica Map - Antarctica Satellite Image

<snip>

[h=2]Antarctica Satellite Image[/h]

<snip>

Nope. Still there.

 

[Buzz]

Rechecking the publication dates you are correct by a few months.

Oh come on long!! You first brought up Otto 2013 with that graphic from the IPCC. Why do you insist on pretending you didn't know? Or is your memory really that bad?

It still raises the question of why the IPCC choose to place simulated output of models on equal footing
with observational based output?

Because it is stupid to think that future feedbacks are going to be the same as past feedbacks. And observational calculations of ECS or TCR will almost certainly be too low.

 

[Buzz]

Probably one of the examples where they cherry picked information from, and disregarded what they didn't like.

Kind of like what you do? Like your beliefs about soot. I have shown you a study that refutes your opinion on the subject. But you just disregarded it like it didn't even exist.

 

[Buzz]

In passing, I've been seeing threads with titles like this one since I first became involved in debate boards.

You'd almost think that the ice down there might have been melting away by now.

Antarctica Map - Antarctica Satellite Image

<snip>

[h=2]Antarctica Satellite Image[/h]

<snip>

Nope. Still there.

Congratulations!!! You just refuted your own straw man.

:lamo

 

[longview]

Because it is stupid to think that future feedbacks are going to be the same as past feedbacks. And observational calculations of ECS or TCR will almost certainly be too low.

It is amazing that you think future feedbacks WILL be different than past feedbacks.
WHY do you think future feedbacks WILL be different than past feedbacks, what would have changed?

 

[code1211]

Congratulations!!! You just refuted your own straw man.

:lamo

What straw man are you referring to?

 

[Buzz]

It is amazing that you think future feedbacks WILL be different than past feedbacks.
WHY do you think future feedbacks WILL be different than past feedbacks, what would have changed?

Why you are playing stupid here I will never know. I only have the majority of scientists who believe as I do that feedbacks will likely increase. We have discussed this before. You know why I would think that. At least you should.

 

[Buzz]

What straw man are you referring to?

The one where you essentially claim that there are threads that make people believe that "the ice down there might have been melting away by now".

 

[Media_Truth]

Why you are playing stupid here I will never know. I only have the majority of scientists who believe as I do that feedbacks will likely increase. We have discussed this before. You know why I would think that. At least you should.

YES!!! And to reinforce your point, here is a study that I looked through the other day.

FAQ 5.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level

FAQ 5.1 Is Sea Level Rising?

Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.

 

[PoS]

What straw man are you referring to?

Dont mind him, he loves to act like a little kid who found the internet for the first time.

 

[code1211]

The one where you essentially claim that there are threads that make people believe that "the ice down there might have been melting away by now".

The point is that the ice is melting and we're all going to die is an ongoing lie spread by the political interpreters of the bubble gum science.

Every year it seems that the Amundsen Ice Shelf is melted. Again. It gets to be just a little tiresome that every year this same story is published by the brain dead twits in our media.

The most recent back tracking of the intelligentsia is the removal of the signs informing that the glaciers in Glacier national Park would be gone by next year.

Turns out the signs announcing that the Glaciers would be gone are gone, but the actual glaciers to which those signs refer are still there.

National Park Quietly Removed Warning That Glaciers ‘Will All Be Gone’ By 2020 After Years Of Heavy Snowfall | The Daily Caller
<snip>
Roger Roots
last Monday




Just last year, officials at Glacier National Park were displaying signs and brochures predicting that all glaciers in the Park would disappear by 2020 (or 2030). Now the Park Service is scrambling to remove the signs without their visitors noticing. The new signs are more nuanced and claim that everyone agrees the glaciers are melting. This is not true; most of the famous glaciers in the Park have slightly grown in recent years. (The pic below shows the sign as it was last year; the video was taken a few days ago.)

Play

-2:15​

Additional Visual Settings

Enter Fullscreen

Unmute






[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

<snip>

 

[longview]

Why you are playing stupid here I will never know. I only have the majority of scientists who believe as I do that feedbacks will likely increase. We have discussed this before. You know why I would think that. At least you should.

If you read the papers, they do not say they believe, the rate of feedbacks will increase, but that they are there.
Here is the section from Hansen et al 1997,
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf

But I do not see the changing variable for time!

 

[Buzz]

If you read the papers, they do not say they believe, the rate of feedbacks will increase, but that they are there.
Here is the section from Hansen et al 1997,
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf
View attachment 67257932
But I do not see the changing variable for time!

We are talking about feedbacks. Not forcings.

This is just so typical of you long... can't debate the subject then just change the subject.

 

[longview]

We are talking about feedbacks. Not forcings.

This is just so typical of you long... can't debate the subject then just change the subject.

Um! you would have to look at Hansen's paper to understand that he is talking about feedbacks.
The paper was from a time when Hansen was still calling feedbacks Ghost forcing.

 

[PoS]

Um! you would have to look at Hansen's paper to understand that he is talking about feedbacks.
The paper was from a time when Hansen was still calling feedbacks Ghost forcing.

LOL Buzz didnt even read Hansen's paper.