Study Shows Rapid Warming On the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

[Catawba]

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

What does that gig pay?

The world wide conspiracy forum is down the hall.....and to the right!

 

[flogger]

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

I didnt ask you for opinion I asked you for verifiable proof, but as ever you failed to provide any :roll:

 

[Catawba]

I didnt ask you for opinion I asked you for verifiable proof, but as ever you failed to provide any :roll:

If the scientific consensus doesn't convince you, nothing will.

 

[flogger]

If the scientific consensus doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Proof will do just fine thanks :lol:

 

[Dezaad]

I didnt ask you for opinion I asked you for verifiable proof, but as ever you failed to provide any :roll:

If I might interject.

You are asking for verifiable proof before you agree to collective action.

Consider the many decisions you make in your life. Out of those decisions, how many of them are ones for which you require 'verifiable proof' before you will take action?

Personally, I would never do anything at all if I required 'verifiable proof' before I engaged. Instead, I seek 'preponderance of the evidence', and then act. Sometimes I act on a gut feeling... though I am not arguing this for AGW.

Surely, you have read about evidence for AGW. Are you saying there is no evidence at all?

 

[Catawba]

Proof will do just fine thanks :lol:

Proof of scientific consensus has already been provided to you and you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[code1211]

Here you go!

Guest | Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

This is not evidence. It is an appeal to authority.

You may as well have said, "Because my mommy told me so!"

Please post some evidence. Global warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming are NOT interchangeable terms.

 

[code1211]

There's n point. You have demonstrated no ability to understand it when it has been presented to you.

This is spectacularly amusing coming from you as you have never posted anything that remotely resembles information, much less evidence.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I want to know why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change?"

Too many global warming conferences were canceled due to snow storms that closed airports, it became embarrassing.

 

[Deuce]

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

Full century, actually. The idea that more CO2 might warm the planet actually came up in the late 1800s.

 

[Deuce]

Too many global warming conferences were canceled due to snow storms that closed airports, it became embarrassing.

Wrong. Both terms have been used for decades. But why let the facts ruin a good argument over semantics?

 

[flogger]

Proof of scientific consensus has already been provided to you and you refuse to acknowledge it.

I didnt ask for that though did I ? I simply asked you for the direct and measurable evidence of culpability. If 13,950 reviews you claim exist actually show this, its odd that you cannot present even one that will substantiate your position or that of the 'consensus' you appeal to every time you get cornered .

 

[Davo The Mavo]

It snowed in Dallas yesterday.

That's funny, I live in an area (North of Chicago on the Wisconsin Border) where I make money plowing snow. I've done it for years, and use to make quite a bit of money doing it. I haven't plowed one time this year and it is almost January. Funny how climate change works. Snows in places it normally doesn't . . . and doesn't where it normally does. Last year was almost this bad.

 

[Peter Grimm]

That's funny, I live in an area (North of Chicago on the Wisconsin Border) where I make money plowing snow. I've done it for years, and use to make quite a bit of money doing it. I haven't plowed one time this year and it is almost January. Funny how climate change works. Snows in places it normally doesn't . . . and doesn't where it normally does. Last year was almost this bad.

I live in Chicago. This year has been warmer than usual. Last year as well. Two years ago was quite cold. Three years ago as well. Four years ago was the coldest in memory, if I recall. It was cold as hell.

Today, we have 37 degrees in Dallas.

Funny thing, the weather. Don't you think it reeks of shortsightedness and arrogance that humans think we can predict and control the weather? I do.

 

[Goshin]

Good. The sooner the Poxyclips comes, the better... I won't have to listen to all this frigging whining.

 

[Poptech]

I didnt ask for that though did I ? I simply asked you for the direct and measurable evidence of culpability. If 13,950 reviews you claim exist actually show this, its odd that you cannot present even one that will substantiate your position or that of the 'consensus' you appeal to every time you get cornered .

Check out some of the papers that showed up in Powell's "search",

First 500 (XLS)

"Atmospheric corrosion of metals in 2010–2039 and 2070–2099"

"Case study of visualizing global user download patterns using Google Earth and NASA World Wind"

"Computational Design of New Refrigerant Fluids Based on Environmental, Safety, and Thermodynamic Characteristics"

"Effects of Warming Temperatures on Winning Times in the Boston Marathon"

"Enhancement of domestic refrigerator's energy efficiency index using a hydrocarbon mixture refrigerant"

"Environmental assessment of pig slurry management after local characterization and normalization"

"Environmental-aware virtual data center network"

"Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms"

"Freezability and Semen Parameters in Candidates of Sperm Bank Donors: 1992-2010"

That is just a quick glance through the 500 he released. It is a gold mine of bull****.

 

[flogger]

Check out some of the papers that showed up in Powell's "search",

First 500 (XLS)

"Atmospheric corrosion of metals in 2010–2039 and 2070–2099"

"Case study of visualizing global user download patterns using Google Earth and NASA World Wind"

"Computational Design of New Refrigerant Fluids Based on Environmental, Safety, and Thermodynamic Characteristics"

"Effects of Warming Temperatures on Winning Times in the Boston Marathon"

"Enhancement of domestic refrigerator's energy efficiency index using a hydrocarbon mixture refrigerant"

"Environmental assessment of pig slurry management after local characterization and normalization"

"Environmental-aware virtual data center network"

"Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms"

"Freezability and Semen Parameters in Candidates of Sperm Bank Donors: 1992-2010"

That is just a quick glance through the 500 he released. It is a gold mine of bull****.

Thanks for the heads up I suspected it might be Poptech. I've certainly never seen evidence that this scale of work has ever been published on AGW and Powell the guy that compiled it is actually a geologist !!! :roll:

 

[code1211]

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?

Warming is warming and Anthropogenic warming, while the same in result is different in cause.

The warming in the fist millennium was actaully greater than in the second.

The warming between 1600 and 1800 was about equal to the warming between 18000 and 2000. The warming from 2000 to date has been negligible or negative.

The retreat of many glaciers was greatest before 1850. The retreat of many snow caps on mountains has been more the result of reduced snowfall than of increasing warming.

Citing results without attributing cause is a tad disingenuous.

 

[code1211]

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

Is this the result of stopping the use of fossil fuels that have provided the foundation for the most plentiful food supply in the history of the planet? If that is your fear, the remedy is easy: Keep burning fossil fuels.

 

[code1211]

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.

Do all of the peer reviewed papers agree absolutely on exactly what the magnitude of the impact of man's contribution might be to climate change and do they all agree absolutely as to the ampunt of climate change is attributable to natural and to man made influences?

Do any of them explain why the increase in temperature seems to occur with or without the influence of man?

 

[code1211]

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.

Where is your evidence that climate has never changed like this in the past?

 

[code1211]

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.

You seem to be in agreement that if fossil fuels continue to be used, then 3 billion people will die of the famines that occur as a direct result of the use of fossil fuels.

Are you saying that it is more important that the Big 0 and Michelle vacation in Hawaii and campaign than those three billion people continuing to live?

 

[code1211]

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.

If you could please humor me, please demonstrate how the warming of today, 0.7 degrees over 2000 years, is catastrophically rapid.

 

[code1211]

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.

We know for certain that the cessation of the use of fossil fuels will result in global famine and pestilence of all natures on Biblical scales worldwide.

The notion of these effects rising from the modest warming we are experiencing is ridiculous.

 

[code1211]

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?

This is satire, right?