Ice Melt is 20 Years Ahead of Schedule

[bluesmoke]

You are not agreeing with me, you are attempting to deflect the argument back to the IPCC's position.
If we consider that 6W/m2 increase in insolation between 1992 and 2001, only a tiny portion of that could have come from increases in greenhouse gasses,
Maybe 0.27 W/m2, the balance over 5.5 W/m2 came from more of the available sunlight reaching the ground.
The TSI is the available sunlight at the top of the atmosphere, The insolation is how much makes it to the ground.
So while the IPCC is correct that TSI has not changed much, the portion that reaches the ground has increased a lot.
I know this does not agree with your dogma, but it is still data that must be accounted for.

I am reflecting on study that takes into account such as what you cite as not being significant. There is no natural explanation for global warming than AGW. You can parse out various study that might in and of itself be interpreted, as you have done in your own scientifically unsupported and non-peer reviewed opinion, to negate the IPCC position that human contribution is not the major cause of GW. However, to say that all study supporting IPCC position is ignorant of the one thing that longview independently discovers and concludes is utter denier nonsense. You cannot, in toto, provide the scientific support to outweigh that of the majority scientific support for the IPCC position to which I correctly “deflect”. All you can do is keep throwing the same denier info spam insignificant detail **** against the wall that in and of itself does not refute IPCC position on AGW. You simply refuse to accept scientific consensus and pretend to use science to refute science when in fact you are a science denier yourself.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...ity-as-the-principal-cause-of-global-warming/

See you on another thread.

 

[bluesmoke]

Almost all of them treat it as not changing. However, given the data, they will not deny the science of it like you do.

I'm not denying the science than what you imply is the scientific conclusion, which is not so. The data you give do not refute the IPCC position on AGW. I do not refute the scientific data, itself.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I read a very interesting article explaining how so much doubt is created about climate change and the impact of climate change on our environment.

They basically copied the book which they used when people starting saying that smoking was bad for our health. Exactly the same.

The big energy companies pay for institutions to make publications that are in their favor. These publications are often only partially true and therefore distorting reality. The people writing these articles are either not qualified or biased themselves because of the money they have received. Some of them even admitted this later.

As a matter of fact, Trump is doing the same thing with the guy he hired to replace Fauci and Birx. This guy is a doctor, but this is not his field. And so Trump can publish what he wants to hear claiming that it is the advice of an 'expert'. It ALWAYS works, because a lot of people will believe it.

Same thing is happening with climate change. Numbers get taken out of context. Small events that are in conflict of what we may expect are used as examples that show the opposite of climate change. etc.

At the same time, there has also been exaggeration from the like of Greenpeace. And where there is no exaggeration there is a bias because any news that is not supportive of the 'cause' is conveniently discarded. No don't get me wrong. Greenpeace has done a great job. Especially in creating awareness of the issue in the first place. But, they have made big mistakes too and not all they publish should be readily accepted as the truth. Or at least not the whole truth...

If you are interested, go and read 'The skeptical environmentalist'. A very interesting book, but not an easy read.

Joey

LOL...

Typical liberal. Misrepresenting the truth to suit the agenda.

It was about second hand smoke. Not smoking.

Can't rely on anything you just said if you speak with no credibility.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am reflecting on study that takes into account such as what you cite as not being significant. There is no natural explanation for global warming than AGW. You can parse out various study that might in and of itself be interpreted, as you have done in your own scientifically unsupported and non-peer reviewed opinion, to negate the IPCC position that human contribution is not the major cause of GW. However, to say that all study supporting IPCC position is ignorant of the one thing that longview independently discovers and concludes is utter denier nonsense. You cannot, in toto, provide the scientific support to outweigh that of the majority scientific support for the IPCC position to which I correctly “deflect”. All you can do is keep throwing the same denier info spam insignificant detail **** against the wall that in and of itself does not refute IPCC position on AGW. You simply refuse to accept scientific consensus and pretend to use science to refute science when in fact you are a science denier yourself.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...ity-as-the-principal-cause-of-global-warming/

See you on another thread.

There are natural reasons.

I have explained them before.

You prove to be a denier of science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm not denying the science than what you imply is the scientific conclusion, which is not so. The data you give do not refute the IPCC position on AGW. I do not refute the scientific data, itself.

Yes, you are a denier of science.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Conservatives are the laziest, dumbest, most selfish sacks on the planet. They don't believe what they can't see, unless it's a fascist interpretation of God/Jesus, they support policies that only add to the problem, and mock those with viable solutions. And when the problem reaches a head and becomes so blatant that even they have to accept reality, it will be someone else's fault for not solving it fast enough. Meanwhile the right-wing suffers no consequences from being in willful denial for decades.

The right-wing has no solutions, only banana peels for the rest of us to slip on.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Conservatives are the laziest, dumbest, most selfish sacks on the planet. They don't believe what they can't see, unless it's a fascist interpretation of God/Jesus, they support policies that only add to the problem, and mock those with viable solutions. And when the problem reaches a head and becomes so blatant that even they have to accept reality, it will be someone else's fault for not solving it fast enough. Meanwhile the right-wing suffers no consequences from being in willful denial for decades.

The right-wing has no solutions, only banana peels for the rest of us to slip on.

LOL...

If you say so. Looks like you have a severe case of arrogant-ignorance.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Conservatives are the laziest, dumbest, most selfish sacks on the planet. They don't believe what they can't see, unless it's a fascist interpretation of God/Jesus, they support policies that only add to the problem, and mock those with viable solutions. And when the problem reaches a head and becomes so blatant that even they have to accept reality, it will be someone else's fault for not solving it fast enough. Meanwhile the right-wing suffers no consequences from being in willful denial for decades.

The right-wing has no solutions, only banana peels for the rest of us to slip on.

What would you say is the worst aspect of a warmer world as per the IPCC's climate numbers?

 

[Robertinfremont]

So, we don't even have the 12 years that AOC warned about. That comes as no surprise to me. However, I am sure there will be a lot of denials and citations from dubious websites.

There always are.

Have you so much as even gone to Greenland where you get to worry on site? Man does not control Climate. AOC is a radical big mouth bartender.

 

[Robertinfremont]

LOL...

If you say so. Looks like you have a severe case of arrogant-ignorance.

Democrats have pounded the table about climate for the past 25 years at least yet they do not control climate even when they are in charge.

 

[longview]

Hi Longview,

Haven't given that too much thought to be honest. I always think of everything going in cycles. I guess it is going in cycles.

I am a bit warry when people start predicting how much the sea level will rise. I am sure it is rising. And I am sure that without human presence or interference it would also rise. What I worries me about this is the rapid changes we are seeing right now. It is the speed at which everything is changing that is causing issues. It gives us less time to prepare.

Anyway, back to the subject. I think it's part of a cycle. I also think that there is cycles within each cycle. And since Greenland and its ice is of such extreme proportions, it is not exactly going to melt over night. So when all is done we can look back and recognize the cycles within as well.

And mind you, things can change overnight. One large volcanic eruption and we may head into a period of cold which we have not seen for centuries. That would be temporary relief though I'm afraid.


Joey

Hello Joey,
I am not sure that we can really show that the speed of recent changes, is much different that the speed of earlier changes.
They show these dramatic graphs of Greenland ice loss, without a ZERO reference.
The reality is that while Greenland has seen some ice loss, it is less than 1% of the total.
The people who want to urge urgent action on climate change, point to almost any weather event as an example
of our changing climate, but our climate does, and will continue to change.
As a society, we should use energy efficiently, and will have to find an alternate to fuels from oil anyway.
I am confident that, our next step, will be man made, carbon neutral, hydrocarbon fuels,
but this is mostly about the massive infrastructure already in place.

 

[longview]

I am reflecting on study that takes into account such as what you cite as not being significant. There is no natural explanation for global warming than AGW. You can parse out various study that might in and of itself be interpreted, as you have done in your own scientifically unsupported and non-peer reviewed opinion, to negate the IPCC position that human contribution is not the major cause of GW. However, to say that all study supporting IPCC position is ignorant of the one thing that longview independently discovers and concludes is utter denier nonsense. You cannot, in toto, provide the scientific support to outweigh that of the majority scientific support for the IPCC position to which I correctly “deflect”. All you can do is keep throwing the same denier info spam insignificant detail **** against the wall that in and of itself does not refute IPCC position on AGW. You simply refuse to accept scientific consensus and pretend to use science to refute science when in fact you are a science denier yourself.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...ity-as-the-principal-cause-of-global-warming/

See you on another thread.

Let's start with would quote,
"There is no natural explanation for global warming than AGW."
Where did I imply that the increase in energy reaching the ground was natural?
The Study is quite clear, that regulations in the 1970's cut Human aerosol emissions, and the
clearer skies allowed more of the available sunlight in!
SO you arguing a point, not in contention!
The IPCC's Radiative-Forcing bar chart: AR5 version, shows aerosol adjustments of -.72W/m2.
But actual data, that predates IPCC AR5 by some 6 years, has a measured number almost ten times larger.
In Science, the observed or empirical data, always has a higher weight than assumptions!

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

 

[Lord of Planar]

Let's start with would quote,
"There is no natural explanation for global warming than AGW."
Where did I imply that the increase in energy reaching the ground was natural?
The Study is quite clear, that regulations in the 1970's cut Human aerosol emissions, and the
clearer skies allowed more of the available sunlight in!
SO you arguing a point, not in contention!
The IPCC's Radiative-Forcing bar chart: AR5 version, shows aerosol adjustments of -.72W/m2.
But actual data, that predates IPCC AR5 by some 6 years, has a measured number almost ten times larger.
In Science, the observed or empirical data, always has a higher weight than assumptions!

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

He simply denies science.

 

[bluesmoke]

There are natural reasons.

I have explained them before.

You prove to be a denier of science.

I do not deny the scientific fact of natural reasons. I refute that natural warming can be shown a significant contributor to the increase in warming of the globe since 1950, which is when CO2 levels reached as high as 800 yrs before and have climbed ever since. I support the scientific consensus that human contribution is the major cause, and may be the only cause, of the increase in global temp, aka AGW. I don't deny your scientific facts, I refute your conclusion which is not supported by the scientific community, by scientific consensus. It is you that deny the scientific conclusion of AGW supported by scientific consensus of the most peer reviewed studies as collected by the IPCC. You can't show any significant number of scientist that support what is your own personal Lord of Planar "scientific" conclusion, regardless of what science you base your conclusion on.

See you on another thread. You can then give me more Lord of Planar opinion/conclusion unsupported by the science community at large.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes, you are a denier of science.

Exactly what science am I denying? What did I say that has you make the claim you do? Quote me. Without evidence, your claim is unfounded and need not be debated further.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Exactly what science am I denying? What did I say that has you make the claim you do? Quote me. Without evidence, your claim is unfounded and need not be debated further.

That actual insolation data is being ignored by the IPCC et. al.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Conservatives are the laziest, dumbest, most selfish sacks on the planet. They don't believe what they can't see, unless it's a fascist interpretation of God/Jesus, they support policies that only add to the problem, and mock those with viable solutions. And when the problem reaches a head and becomes so blatant that even they have to accept reality, it will be someone else's fault for not solving it fast enough. Meanwhile the right-wing suffers no consequences from being in willful denial for decades.

The right-wing has no solutions, only banana peels for the rest of us to slip on.

How does that rant add any value to a discussion of melting ice?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I do not deny the scientific fact of natural reasons. I refute that natural warming can be shown a significant contributor to the increase in warming of the globe since 1950, which is when CO2 levels reached as high as 800 yrs before and have climbed ever since. I support the scientific consensus that human contribution is the major cause, and may be the only cause, of the increase in global temp, aka AGW. I don't deny your scientific facts, I refute your conclusion which is not supported by the scientific community, by scientific consensus. It is you that deny the scientific conclusion of AGW supported by scientific consensus of the most peer reviewed studies as collected by the IPCC. You can't show any significant number of scientist that support what is your own personal Lord of Planar "scientific" conclusion, regardless of what science you base your conclusion on.

See you on another thread. You can then give me more Lord of Planar opinion/conclusion unsupported by the science community at large.

I have explained this so many times over the years, I am tired of people conveniently forgetting.

The sun started coming out of the Maunder Minima in 1713, according to the best science we have. The peak intensity of the sun was 1958. It has diminished somewhat since then, but is still hotter than the 200 year period before 1900. Into the late 30's and early 40's, we recorded record temperatures that until "corrected," were higher than temperatures we see today. The 40's is when our dirtying up the skies with aerosols stared mitigating the warming we are now finally seeing as the skies clear.

If other variables were static, the suns effect alone with ocean equalization would be close to this:

The oceans are highly affected by surface insolation, and so is the solid ground. However, the ground only takes a few months to equalize, but the ocean takes around 100 years to equalize to 60%.

We started diminishing the sun's insolation to the surface with industrialization, and this effect of reducing the warming power of the sun continued past the 70's. Once we emitted less aerosols into the sky, it took decades for all the smallest of aerosols to clear out. As the aerosols cleared out, we had a period of time after a980, the the earth got warmer and warmer as more sun could strike the surface.

 

[Dans La Lune]

How does that rant add any value to a discussion of melting ice?

I'm setting the stage for the actual discussion. By the way, what do you do as a profession?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm setting the stage for the actual discussion. By the way, what do you do as a profession?

I have done several things in my nearly five decades of work. My first career was telecommunications, After that, engineering of automation equipment. Some odd jobs here and there, includuding working at the Oregon Heath Sciences University. More recently, working well below my abilities due to job market fluctuations. I found a stable job 12 years ago and I'm too old to risk being laid off again if I moved into better employment, so I stay in an underpaid job, but still make 6 figures. I still use my technical expertise. Too close to retirement.

 

[bluesmoke]

Let's start with would quote,
"There is no natural explanation for global warming than AGW."
Where did I imply that the increase in energy reaching the ground was natural?
The Study is quite clear, that regulations in the 1970's cut Human aerosol emissions, and the
clearer skies allowed more of the available sunlight in!
SO you arguing a point, not in contention!
The IPCC's Radiative-Forcing bar chart: AR5 version, shows aerosol adjustments of -.72W/m2.
But actual data, that predates IPCC AR5 by some 6 years, has a measured number almost ten times larger.
In Science, the observed or empirical data, always has a higher weight than assumptions!

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

Getting a flat-out statement of your position on AGW is like nailing Jell-O to a wall. I really don't know what you're trying to say that is pertinent.

You said, in so many words, that GW was not necessarily unusual in terms of the history of the world. I’m saying the IPCC position is supported by peer-reviewed study and science consensus to conclude that the majority of GW, that is to say increase in the warming of the planet, is caused by man and it may be that all GW is caused by man and that there is no scientific consensus supporting natural causes of GW. There has never been such increase in temp in the history of mankind as has been since 1880 and mostly since 1950 when CO2 emission by man began increasing at the greatest rate. Nothing you have posted, regardless of the science, has been accepted by the science community as having so significant effect on GW as to change the IPCC position on AGW. Whatever conclusion you draw as your opinion based on whatever scientific data you use that you may state in all you have posted is not accepted by the scientific community to any extent as to refute or cause change in the IPCC position on AGW.

I think we’re done here.

 

[longview]

Getting a flat-out statement of your position on AGW is like nailing Jell-O to a wall. I really don't know what you're trying to say that is pertinent.

You said, in so many words, that GW was not necessarily unusual in terms of the history of the world. I’m saying the IPCC position is supported by peer-reviewed study and science consensus to conclude that the majority of GW, that is to say increase in the warming of the planet, is caused by man and it may be that all GW is caused by man and that there is no scientific consensus supporting natural causes of GW. There has never been such increase in temp in the history of mankind as has been since 1880 and mostly since 1950 when CO2 emission by man began increasing at the greatest rate. Nothing you have posted, regardless of the science, has been accepted by the science community as having so significant effect on GW as to change the IPCC position on AGW. Whatever conclusion you draw as your opinion based on whatever scientific data you use that you may state in all you have posted is not accepted by the scientific community to any extent as to refute or cause change in the IPCC position on AGW.

I think we’re done here.

Science is not a group activity!
Just saying the warming is likely related to Human activity, is too vague, and includes
the finding that global brightening caused from regulations, could have had as much or a greater
effect on the warming as added CO2.
The IPCC's position is based on incomplete data.

 

[bluesmoke]

That actual insolation data is being ignored by the IPCC et. al.

Perhaps the exact exhibit of yours has not even been seen by the IPCC. Nonetheless, insolation is reflected, no pun intended, overtime by solar irradiance, which cannot be shown as having any significant effect on earth’s rising temp:

“…solar irradiance are not the major cause of the temperature changes in the second half of the 20th century unless those changes can induce unknown large feedbacks in the climate system.”

IPCC Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance
See last para:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html

You can't say the data is being ignored when it's impossible for what the data is of to be excluded from the ultimate data used by the IPCC to have come to the consensus conclusions as reported.

So, insolation has no ultimate affect on temp rise. Futhermore:

“The energy (or insolation) received on a surface throughout the year varies relatively little from year to year”

.See the 1st para of section Annual Variation of solar insolation:
http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/solar/radiation/empiricalevidence.php

There has been no variation of insolation to indicate any possible impact on temp.

Your argument, parsing out what data you do, is unsupported by the greater body of facts. End of debate.

 

[bluesmoke]

I have explained this so many times over the years, I am tired of people conveniently forgetting.

The sun started coming out of the Maunder Minima in 1713, according to the best science we have. The peak intensity of the sun was 1958. It has diminished somewhat since then, but is still hotter than the 200 year period before 1900. Into the late 30's and early 40's, we recorded record temperatures that until "corrected," were higher than temperatures we see today. The 40's is when our dirtying up the skies with aerosols stared mitigating the warming we are now finally seeing as the skies clear.

If other variables were static, the suns effect alone with ocean equalization would be close to this:

The oceans are highly affected by surface insolation, and so is the solid ground. However, the ground only takes a few months to equalize, but the ocean takes around 100 years to equalize to 60%.

We started diminishing the sun's insolation to the surface with industrialization, and this effect of reducing the warming power of the sun continued past the 70's. Once we emitted less aerosols into the sky, it took decades for all the smallest of aerosols to clear out. As the aerosols cleared out, we had a period of time after a980, the the earth got warmer and warmer as more sun could strike the surface.

The sun goes through 11-yr cycles, one cooling, one warming.

“According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.”

See 4th para:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

All you do is repeat what is taken into consideration by the IPCC and post insignificant exhibits that do not mean what your pretend to mean, having no effect on the AGW position of the IPCC. Your repetition is moronic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The sun goes through 11-yr cycles, one cooling, one warming.

“According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.”

See 4th para:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

All you do is repeat what is taken into consideration by the IPCC and post insignificant exhibits that do not mean what your pretend to mean, having no effect on the AGW position of the IPCC. Your repetition is moronic.

Your analagies are exceptionally simplistic and wrong. It's far more complicated that you think.

We should start with solar heating. The cycle of the sun, only changes by about 0.1% over the short cycle period. That means a very small change in heating. However, the atmospheric opacity changes. It changes enough that the sun striking the surface changes by over 6 W/m^2 in some locations. If we consider an average 600 W/m^2 strikes the surface in the daylight, and the surface insolation changes by 6, that is a 1% change, 10 times that of a TSI cycle change. It's also greater than a doubling of CO2 with is considered to be 3.71 W/m^2.

Notice how you Nasa bloggers link doesn't even address surface insolation.

You convienently deny what I say, and like the indoctrinated zeolot you are, you link a canned response with no thought.