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

[Threegoofs]

There was no discussion in this paper that I notes as a number of respondents who disagreed with AGW. It was a larger or less than 50% effect.

I don't see why you are on this attack kick. The study clearly shows that consensus does not exist to a degree of being worthy.

24% were clearly in the camp that believes nature is stronger than man. Compared to the 36% that clearly thought man was a larger influence than nature, that is a pretty large amount.

Granted, these are professional geoscientists rather than climatologists, but for the alarmist view of consensus to have meaning, you have to get agreement among all the earth sciences. Not just one small slice of it.

Whew! Its starting to get windy in here!

 

[Lord of Planar]

The way you guys twist things is hilarious.

1. These aren't just climate scientists.

2. 36% specifically "endorse" climate change.

3. 6% specifically reject it.

4. 97% of climate scientists endorse climate change

If you read the entire paper you will see that it questions why so many professionals erroneously do not accept climate science.

If you read the paper, you see there is a preconceived notion about AGW, and skeptics.

 

[Verax]

If you read the paper, you see there is a preconceived notion about AGW, and skeptics.

What the paper that you based your bs on now isn't good enough because it doesn't support your argument?

 

[Verax]

You see folks, this is why you don't let right-wing propaganda sites form your opinions for you. They "interpret" the paper to suit their motives and ignorant fools come along and gobble it up, only reading the headline as they pass the bs on to the next victim.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What the paper that you based your bs on now isn't good enough because it doesn't support your argument?

The paper isn't about my argument. The writers are in the AGW camp. However, it supports the fact that what you call consensus, is changing. Changing away from your faithful view.

 

[calamity]

It could be just me but that but that seems off topic...

Not really. The Right goes ape over abortion and wants to impose all sorts of government rules which interfere with doctor patient privilege. The Left in turn wants to overreach on what they call AGW. THey're dream is to create a "carbon tax" market. IMO, neither one can really criticize the other.

My point with the thread is to simply point out that the globe is getting warmer. That fact cannot be denied.

 

[Jack Hays]

You see folks, this is why you don't let right-wing propaganda sites form your opinions for you. They "interpret" the paper to suit their motives and ignorant fools come along and gobble it up, only reading the headline as they pass the bs on to the next victim.

Sorry, but the only one who has missed the point is you. There's no interpretation needed. Those who conducted the study are clearly sympathetic to AGW and were surprised that such an educated and scientifically literate respondent pool would be so skeptical. If you'd spend less time on ad hominems and more time understanding the data you would not fall into such error.eace

 

[Lord of Planar]

You see folks, this is why you don't let right-wing propaganda sites form your opinions for you. They "interpret" the paper to suit their motives and ignorant fools come along and gobble it up, only reading the headline as they pass the bs on to the next victim.

OK, so please tell us.

What is wrong in the link Jack gave us, or the Forbes article?

 

[Verax]

The paper isn't about my argument. The writers are in the AGW camp. However, it supports the fact that what you call consensus, is changing. Changing away from your faithful view.

Sorry, but the only one who has missed the point is you. There's no interpretation needed. Those who conducted the study are clearly sympathetic to AGW and were surprised that such an educated and scientifically literate respondent pool would be so skeptical. If you'd spend less time on ad hominems and more time understanding the data you would not fall into such error.eace

OK, so please tell us.

What is wrong in the link Jack gave us, or the Forbes article?

You guys... I... I just don't know what to say anymore. Your logic hurts my head.

You're both supporting and attacking your own links... you've gone off the deep end. If we get any closer to the brink... the left hemisphere of your brains will attack the right hemisphere in an attempt to purge the blasphemy.

I think I'm done "debating" with you guys. You're so intellectually dishonest its hard to even maintain coherence.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You guys... I... I just don't know what to say anymore. Your logic hurts my head.

You're both supporting and attacking your own links... you've gone off the deep end. If we get any closer to the brink... the left hemisphere of your brains will attack the right hemisphere in an attempt to purge the blasphemy.

I think I'm done "debating" with you guys. You're so intellectually dishonest its hard to even maintain coherence.

Maybe if you lost that binary thinking, you could understand.

There is no absolute one way or the other. The truth lies somewhere between.

 

[Jack Hays]

You guys... I... I just don't know what to say anymore. Your logic hurts my head.

You're both supporting and attacking your own links... you've gone off the deep end. If we get any closer to the brink... the left hemisphere of your brains will attack the right hemisphere in an attempt to purge the blasphemy.

I think I'm done "debating" with you guys. You're so intellectually dishonest its hard to even maintain coherence.

Neither of us has at any time attacked the link. You, and you alone, have brought your confusion to the discussion.eace

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think I'm done "debating" with you guys.

I'm OK with that.

Maybe someone will step up that can actually understand the sciences behind Climate change.

 

[Bodi]

Not really. The Right goes ape over abortion and wants to impose all sorts of government rules which interfere with doctor patient privilege. The Left in turn wants to overreach on what they call AGW. THey're dream is to create a "carbon tax" market. IMO, neither one can really criticize the other.

My point with the thread is to simply point out that the globe is getting warmer. That fact cannot be denied.

It is climate change. Are humans helping it along? Perhaps. I don't fear this any more than I fear an Ice Age. **** happens.

 

[calamity]

It is climate change. Are humans helping it along? Perhaps. I don't fear this any more than I fear an Ice Age. **** happens.

There's also a nice correlation between higher temperatures and the increase in carbon emissions. But, as far as I know, causation has not yet been determined.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There's also a nice correlation between higher temperatures and the increase in carbon emissions. But, as far as I know, causation has not yet been determined.

Are the temperature increases real?

The raw temperature data at all the urban heat island areas have increased. Just how do you know the adjustments are correct? That is another part of this science that is pretty flaky. My gut feeling, tells me this claimed 0.8 degree increase since industrialization is closer to only a 0.3 degree increase. I will go on and say again. I believe the sun is the primary reason for warming and that soot is the primary reason for the arctic melting, and second reason for warming.

 

[American]

Yes, I read it. Why do you fail to understand simple concepts?

The long term trend shows the pH possibly lowering ocean alkalinity by 0.02 pH over a 300 year span. They can accurately make the correlation that CO2 has become more acidic because of CO2. Note... they do not quantify the CO2 effect, but the do quantify the natural cyclical nature!

Look at the graph again.

Now...

have you leaned the difference roles HCO3 and CO3 play... and why you were completely wrong?

Why can't you admit a mistake?

Looks like he hit his three goof limit. :lol:

 

[calamity]

Are the temperature increases real?

The raw temperature data at all the urban heat island areas have increased. Just how do you know the adjustments are correct? That is another part of this science that is pretty flaky. My gut feeling, tells me this claimed 0.8 degree increase since industrialization is closer to only a 0.3 degree increase. I will go on and say again. I believe the sun is the primary reason for warming and that soot is the primary reason for the arctic melting, and second reason for warming.

Glaciers are receding, polar ice caps are shrinking, sea ice is thinning...it's a wee bit more than just a matter of "raw temperature data at all the urban heat island areas" having increased. Soot from industry is nothing compared to the volcanic ash of the past. So, I don't buy that one at all. Solar activity? Plausible.

 

[Samhain]

Glaciers are receding, polar ice caps are shrinking, sea ice is thinning...it's a wee bit more than just a matter of "raw temperature data at all the urban heat island areas" having increased. Soot from industry is nothing compared to the volcanic ash of the past. So, I don't buy that one at all. Solar activity? Plausible.

Earth

Irina Rogozhina of the Helmholtz Institute in Potsdam and her colleagues looked at Greenland’s ice sheets. Because a large amount of water is held in these permanent ice sheets, climate scientists have been monitoring them carefully. One of the important measures of their dynamics is the amount of water that melts from the base of these glaciers.

Rogozhina's team found that the amount of basal melting cannot be fully explained by the current climate models. For any models to match with observed melting, she suggests that they need to account for Earth’s internal heat. The lithosophere, Earth’s rocky shell, varies in thickness beneath Greenland for reasons that are currently not well understood. Some parts of Greenland’s lithosphere are very thick and act as an insulator, protecting the ice from the interior heat. But other parts are thin, and the heat flow there affects the ice sheets.

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

 

[calamity]

Earth



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

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.

 

[Samhain]

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.

You miss the point. The models are excluding many factors.

As for the Antarctic Ice Sheet:

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been reported to be losing mass at accelerating rates1, 2. If sustained, this accelerating mass loss will result in a global mean sea-level rise by the year 2100 that is approximately 43 cm greater than if a linear trend is assumed2. However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes and thus permit extrapolation to the future

 

[calamity]

You miss the point. The models are excluding many factors.

As for the Antarctic Ice Sheet:

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been reported to be losing mass at accelerating rates1, 2. If sustained, this accelerating mass loss will result in a global mean sea-level rise by the year 2100 that is approximately 43 cm greater than if a linear trend is assumed2. However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes and thus permit extrapolation to the future

cm = approx, 3/8 inch. Only an 18 inch greater rise in sea level? Sounds low.

 

[Threegoofs]

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.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So you're argument is that despite the fact that we know warming is happening with actual temperatures,

Has happened up until around 15 year ago...

and the fact that we know accelerated melting is happening,

Has happened, but now is seeing record GROWTH in the ice sheet.

at a potentially (ahem) alarming rate,

Opinion with no real basis.

since we can't quantify the contribution to the melting from heat from below, none of the other stuff matters?

You also cannot account for the lack of warming of the past decade +.

That's some reasoning.

The reasoning is simply that the alarmists are control freaks trying to tell people that they are bad for the earth if they engage in any co2 producing activity (which is, perhaps oblivious to the warmer crowd, something that even could impact respiration).

 

[Samhain]

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.

The models are junk because they exclude too many variables and concepts. Comparing temperatures ranges gathered using multiple technologies and techniques is ripe for inaccuracy.

 

[Threegoofs]

Has happened, but now is seeing record GROWTH in the ice sheet.

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.