Study Shows Rapid Warming On the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

[flogger]

Would it prove the claim of climate change if researchers showed:

• Temperatures are going up in some places
• Temperatures are declining in some places
• Temperatures are going up overall
• Ocean levels are rising
• Permanent ice structures are retreating in some places
• Permanent ice structures are advancing in some places
• Permanent ice structures are retreating overall
• Carbon Dioxide retains more heat than other atmospheric gasses
• Carbon Dioxide has increased as a percentage of atmospheric gasses.
• Increases in Carbon Dioxide have correlated with increases in overall global temperatures for a very long long time.

If researchers showed strong evidence for all of the above, would this convince you? If not, what would?

The climate is always changing and always will. Today is nothing special over the last few millenia ,despite what the shysters who manufactured this panic would have you believe.

 

[Catawba]

The climate is always changing and always will. Today is nothing special over the last few millenia ,despite what the shysters who manufactured this panic would have you believe.

Do you believe there has been a world wide conspiracy of scientists for the last quarter of a century?

 

[flogger]

You did not answer the question:

"Let's see any proof that refutes the assessment that only a sliver of peer reviewed science say man's contribution is not a factor in climate change.

I just linked you 1100+ earlier what more do you want ! I dont really have to do even that because the burden of proof is all yours here frankly. I'm not the one with the dodgy hypothesis to defend after all !

 

[flogger]

Do you believe there has been a world wide conspiracy of scientists for the last quarter of a century?

I havent asked them . Have you ?

 

[Dezaad]

The climate is always changing and always will today is nothing special over the last few millenia ,despite what the shysters who manufactured this panic would have you believe.

Indeed the climate has always changed. Climate scientists state this themselves. The evidence indicates that you are wrong, however, in your assertion that the current change is 'nothing special'. The pace of climate change today is comparable to catastrophic changes in the past. "Catastrophic" meaning that flora, fauna, and humans don't have enough time to adapt or otherwise adjust to the rapidity of the change. It indicates that populations of these three groups will become stressed in some way or another, and in some cases, certain species will be killed off.

As Your Star indicates, crop failures are likely to be a result, stressing human populations which depend on crops for either the quality of their lives, or in some cases, life itself.

 

[flogger]

Indeed the climate has always changed. Climate scientists state this themselves. The evidence indicates that you are wrong, however, in your assertion that the current change is 'nothing special'. The pace of climate change today is comparable to catastrophic changes in the past. "Catastrophic" meaning that flora, fauna, and humans don't have enough time to adapt or otherwise adjust to the rapidity of the change. It indicates that populations of these three groups will become stressed in some way or another, and in some cases, certain species will be killed off.

As Your Star indicates, crop failures are likely to be a result, stressing human populations which depend on crops for either the quality of their lives, or in some cases, life itself.

Total alarmists nonsense as has been illustrated over multiple threads multiple times now. I dont have the willpower to link it all over again just read the Global warming AKA climate change thread its in there somewhere no doubt.

 

[whysoserious]

It snowed in Dallas yesterday.

And this exact quote just goes to show that some people have no idea what global warming means. LOL

No offense dude, but read a book.

Whenever I read the latest OMG the sky is falling global warmer post I always wonder, so what's your point? Obama is on your side but takes two 727 jets to Hawaii to go on vacation. When I see you people walk the walk I will pay more attention when you talk the talk. Until then I consider you panic stricken hypocrite alarmist that are so full of s*** that I can smell you coming a mile away.

So for global warming to be a relevant issue, the president of the United States is not allowed to use AF1 anymore?

Sounds like a pretty ****ing weird pretext. Guess that's why you don't make the rules.

 

[Dezaad]

Total alarmists nonsense as has been illustrated over multiple threads multiple times now. I dont have the willpower to link it all over again

It has actually been extremely well backed up in those threads, and I also have no willpower to link it. Others do such a better job of it, though I imagine they are growing weary themselves.

 

[Somerville]

Not that it's really all that important but sawyerloggingon once again demonstrates his ignorance when he posts "Obama . . . takes two 727 jets to Hawaii to go on vacation."

 

[Peter Grimm]

So which 3 billion people should die of starvation because crops begin to fail, and we can't feed everyone?

Scare tactics much?

 

[Peter Grimm]

And this exact quote just goes to show that some people have no idea what global warming means. LOL

No offense dude, but read a book.



So for global warming to be a relevant issue, the president of the United States is not allowed to use AF1 anymore?

Sounds like a pretty ****ing weird pretext. Guess that's why you don't make the rules.

No, really. It snowed.

 

[flogger]

So which 3 billion people should die of starvation because crops begin to fail, and we can't feed everyone?

Please cite your source for this claim ?

 

[Dezaad]

Scare tactics much?

It is only "scare tactics" if you beg the question as to the credibility of the notion that the climate is changing and whether such climate change would lead to crop failures. Otherwise, crop failures and starvation are a legitimate reason to examine carefully whether we really want global warming.

 

[Dezaad]

No, really. It snowed.

You do realize, don't you, that global warming could easily lead to increased snowfall overall as well as seeing snow in some of the places which do not usually see it?

 

[whysoserious]

No, really. It snowed.

The average global temperature being on the rise has literally zero things in common with it snowing in a place where snow is rare. Please figure that out.

 

[Fisher]

Agriculture will adapt to global warming faster than most industries. The US needs to stop offering flood insurance to those who live along the coast though to help drive people back as we simply do not have the resources to build seawalls along our entire shoreline to protect million dollar vacation homes.

 

[Dezaad]

Agriculture will adapt to global warming faster than most industries. The US needs to stop offering flood insurance to those who live along the coast though to help drive people back as we simply do not have the resources to build seawalls along our entire shoreline to protect million dollar vacation homes.

I think the residents of those areas can build them if they want, with their own money. And I am willing to give emergency assistance to those who need it for destroyed homes. However, if they take the money, the location of their current home cannot ever be rebuilt upon. They must build on high enough ground to insure that it won't be a problem again. I think this last measure would help spread any costs to the rest of us over time.

 

[Peter Grimm]

It is only "scare tactics" if you beg the question as to the credibility of the notion that the climate is changing and whether such climate change would lead to crop failures. Otherwise, crop failures and starvation are a legitimate reason to examine carefully whether we really want global warming.

People tend to whip themselves up in to a synthetic frenzy over this issue, and it is entirely baseless.

Is global warming real? Quite possibly, but let's be level-headed about it.

I can recommend a good book for you: Cool It, by Bjorn Lomborg. The book weighs the costs and benefits of the fight against global warming.

Intriguing read.

 

[Catawba]

I just linked you 1100+ earlier what more do you want ! I dont really have to do even that because the burden of proof is all yours here frankly. I'm not the one with the dodgy hypothesis to defend after all !

You do not know what peer reviewed is if you think that is what you linked to. The very definition of a science denier is one that refuses to acknowledge scientific consensus.

 

[flogger]

You do not know what peer reviewed is if you think that is what you linked to. The very definition of a science denier is one that refuses to acknowledge scientific consensus.

Nonsense ! This is just evasion

On my link which one of the hundreds of sub links provided there for you failed to link to at least an abstract or full Peer review PDF file ?

Now I require just one such study from you citing empirical (thats non modelled) evidence of human culpability for current climate change.

 

[Catawba]

Nonsense ! This is just evasion

On my link which one of the hundreds of sub links provided there for you failed to link to at least an abstract or full Peer review PDF file ?

Now I require just one such study from you citing empirical (thats non modelled) evidence of human culpability for current climate change.

If the scientific consensus since 2007 (which considered empirical evidence) has not convinced you, nothing will. You are science denier.

 

[spanky]

"...senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center..."

What does that gig pay?

 

[joko104]

Gore, Pelosi et al. are completely irrelevant. The most important thing is that hundreds and hundreds of scientists have come up with per-reviewed, factual evidence that there is significant climate change in recent years, and that all evidence points to manmade factors being involved.

Hundreds AND hundreds, huh?

No one yet has explained how shifting more hydrocarbon usage to China, India, Asia and the Indian subcontinent will solve the problem. Maybe you can explain it?

But, first, let's agree - apparently many don't - that those countries and regions are also on this same planet as the United States is. Then go from there.

 

[Dezaad]

People tend to whip themselves up in to a synthetic frenzy over this issue, and it is entirely baseless.

Is global warming real? Quite possibly, but let's be level-headed about it.

I can recommend a good book for you: Cool It, by Bjorn Lomborg. The book weighs the costs and benefits of the fight against global warming.

Intriguing read.

Actually, I think such a book is alright as it appears to represent one possible outcome. It is clear to me that GW is occurring and will continue long into our future. However, it is exceedingly difficult to predict the eventual cost of it to the people of the World.

I have long ago quit hoping for the World, let alone the U.S., to act on the very solid science behind AGW by reducing greenhouse gasses output. I certainly don't see any reason for the rest of the World to do anything about carbon dioxide output if the U.S., China and India don't go first, and they all simply aren't going to do it. I think we should focus on studying how to mitigate the likely outcomes, so that we are ahead of the curve when some of them eventually transpire.

That way we don't have to argue about whether man is causing (A)GW, but rather simply find a good enough consensus that GW is in fact happening. We can then hopefully proceed to studying what your suggested book probably attempts to address; that is, deciding what to do about the effects.

In essence, the fight over the 'A' in AGW is a distraction, in that it is almost always hopeless to get people to act proactively when "proactivity" is expensive. As such, we might be able to partially prepare better than we can significantly prevent. If we are lucky, your book will be correct and the costs will be low. Other than that, C'est la vie.

 

[Dezaad]

Hundreds AND hundreds, huh?

No one yet has explained how shifting more hydrocarbon usage to China, India, Asia and the Indian subcontinent will solve the problem. Maybe you can explain it?

But, first, let's agree - apparently many don't - that those countries and regions are also on this same planet as the United States is. Then go from there.

I think this is an astute observation: With China and India unwilling to agree to reduce carbon emissions, there is no reason for the U.S. to lead the way... this is considering the fact that theirs are rising consumer economies which will simply suck up, and burn, whatever oil we choose not to.

Nevertheless, the 'hundreds and hundreds' does actually hold under scrutiny.