• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Proof that it's Getting Warmer---Fast

Threegoofs said:
Continued lying. Why?
About the Greenland Ice Sheet | Greenland Ice Sheet

Money quote:

In the balance, the average mass of an ice sheet may change very little—unless a changing climate is tipping the balance towards melt.

The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline in recent decades, attended by an increase in surface melt.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend

The money quote in this one is : "even with all the data manipulation the trend is still down (cooling)."
 
Samhain said:
Earth



If climate models are actually excluding core heat, then they are more screwed up than I even imagined.
Click to expand...

Yes.

That is a factor of glacier melting. The core of the earth does have some heat conductance that melts the basal ice. I have mentioned that a few times, and it may be why Iceland and Greenland seem to have the wrong names. The thermals underneath may have moved. Iceland enjoys a vast quantity of geothermal energy that they use today.
 
calamity said:
Ice sheet in Antarctica are also thinning. So, if it's core heat, there is a lot more going on than just some local hot spots. Also, core heat cannot explain glaciers receding up in the high mountains of the Himalaya and places like Fuji or Kilimanjaro.
Click to expand...
This is a volcano. Is it classified as extinct? Basal ice melt is explained by geothermal energy. How does CO2 make it there? Surface melting can simply be soot.

NASA: [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/]Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination[/URL]

Soot's Effect on Glaciers

Soot also affects melting of alpine glaciers. Some scientists believe the snow cap of Mount Kilimanjaro will be gone in two decades. Researchers say the ice fields on Africa's highest mountain shrank by 80 percent in the past century. The snow cap formed some 11,000 years ago. The Landsat satellite captured these images of Kilimanjaro February 17, 1993 and Feb. 21, 2000.
Click to expand...

We need more studies like this:

Black Carbon Deposition on Snow and Glaciers in Washington State: Implications for Accelerated Snowmelt

I have seen something very solid in the past directly implicating Black carbon to mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss. I didn't find it in a quick search. Maybe someone else is willing to spend more time looking.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL! It says NOAA says one thing, but a climate blogger disagrees. I think ill go with NOAA...
Click to expand...

Wow, the blogger you are deriding was pointing out that NOAA is talking out of both sides of its mouth, they are claiming warming, talking about record ice levels, and then trying to claim that as proof of warming.

If this is the calibre of your reading comprehension, it's no wonder the debate is so tedious, you can't really read unless it's what you want it to say.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you're argument is that despite the fact that we know warming is happening with actual temperatures, and the fact that we know accelerated melting is happening, at a potentially (ahem) alarming rate, since we can't quantify the contribution to the melting from heat from below, none of the other stuff matters?

That's some reasoning.
Click to expand...

How much faster will the ice in your freezer melt if you change the temperature from 28 F to 29 F?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have seen something very solid in the past directly implicating Black carbon to mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss. I didn't find it in a quick search. Maybe someone else is willing to spend more time looking.
Click to expand...

PNAS (and Scientific American) disagree that soot is much of a driver of warming at all.

Cutting Soot and Methane May Not Slow Climate Change: Scientific American


But then again, they are just a bunch of scientists.

Who are they, who cant hold a candle to you, the person who has disproven CAGW with simple math whist sitting at his kitchen table! The Nobel awaits if, errr when, you get that published. I'm sure you've submitted it by now.:roll:
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have seen something very solid in the past directly implicating Black carbon to mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss. I didn't find it in a quick search. Maybe someone else is willing to spend more time looking.
Click to expand...

PNAS (and Scientific American) disagree that soot is much of a driver of warming at all.

Cutting Soot and Methane May Not Slow Climate Change: Scientific American


But then again, they are just a bunch of scientists.

Who are they, who cant hold a candle to you, the person who has disproven CAGW with simple math whist sitting at his kitchen table! The Nobel awaits if, errr when, you get that published. I'm sure you've submitted it by now.:roll:
 
Threegoofs said:
PNAS (and Scientific American) disagree that soot is much of a driver of warming at all.

Cutting Soot and Methane May Not Slow Climate Change: Scientific American

But then again, they are just a bunch of scientists.

Who are they, who cant hold a candle to you, the person who has disproven CAGW with simple math whist sitting at his kitchen table! The Nobel awaits if, errr when, you get that published. I'm sure you've submitted it by now.:roll:
Click to expand...

I'll bet this is another one of your goofs, where you reference what an unqualified scientific writer interprets from a paper.

Why did you link Scientific American rather than the study?

Hint... like your one you posted claiming the NAS said AGW is a theory, you are dead wrong...
 
LOL...

I found the paper Shindell references. It's a 2010 paper, and your unqualified author in ScienceFiction American says as a incorrect quote:

"Their question is really, assuming a world where everything economically attractive has already happened, then what extra benefit can you get by targeting these [short-lived] pollutants?" Shindell said. "That's a really important difference."
Click to expand...

Please notice the added "short lived." Shindell never said that!

The article is titled "Short‐term effects of controlling fossil‐fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health"

You see, nether of these (CH4 or soot) are classes as short term...

Therefor...

The short term effects changes of CH4 and soot are expected to be minimal.

Soot is estimated to have a minimum of a 900 GWP for the 100 year rating, but then... You don't understand these things.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'll bet this is another one of your goofs, where you reference what an unqualified scientific writer interprets from a paper.

Why did you link Scientific American rather than the study?

...
Click to expand...

Because you don't have access to Nature. And generally, Scientific American is kinda well known for having....great scientific writers and editors.

Plus, you probably wouldn't understand it anyway, because you deny AGW is an established theory, so you can't put anything into context if you don't have the faintest understanding of the established context.
 
Threegoofs said:
Because you don't have access to Nature. And generally, Scientific American is kinda well known for having....great scientific writers and editors.
Click to expand...
LOL...

Yes, that is the perception of amateurs.


Threegoofs said:
Plus, you probably wouldn't understand it anyway, because you deny AGW is an established theory, so you can't put anything into context if you don't have the faintest understanding of the established context.
Click to expand...
AGW is not established theory. Nobody in the scientific community agrees with you.

You claim I don't understand, yet it is you who doesn't.

Did you read my response to you saying that in the other thread?

I suggest you do. I suggest you read the letter that your science-fiction writer lied about in a quote.

Please read the letter, and show me "the money quote."

Your name suits you well goof...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom