Study Shows Rapid Warming On the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

[code1211]

You shouldn't judge a book by its cover. You shouldn't judge a theory by its politicians.

Even as a slight conservative, I understand the science is there, global warming is real its man-made and its dangerous. But as a realist, I understand that the damage caused from severely fossil fuels may be greater in the short term then the damage caused by global warming. Nothing isn't without its opportunity costs.

I also understand that solutions which utilize too many resources to be viable, or are not efficient, will never replace fossil fuels on a scale that will make a difference. Which is why I am in favor of heavily investing in nuclear and natural gas technologies, because they can make fossil fuels inferior. I see Solar panels working on a more micro scale rather then actual solar power plants but I think the clear emphasis is to find ways to make fossil fuels completely unnecessary.

And yet there seems to be little or no difference in the warming that occurred before the Industrial Revolution and after the IR.

One might suppose that if increased CO2 accelerates the rate of warming then increased CO2 would have accelerated the rate of warming.

Is this supposition not a direct line bit of logic if the science is there?

 

[code1211]

Einstein did not reject basic science concepts.

"In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[3] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4][5]"

When you characterize those who have not been convinced as being denialists, you do them a disservice. What is it about the proponestns of this hoax that removes their ability to see that this is not science at all and is in truth a set of ideas with no foundation?

Any time i ask to have the evidence to support the idea presented, I am called names. When i ask for what is called observational consequences below, there is never, NEVER, and brought forth. Without this, there is no science. You are talking about superstition.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

 

[code1211]

Proofs are for logic and mathematics, not the realm of science. Pull your shirt down, your ignorance is showing.

Excuse my vocabulary. Please present the record of the science in this field that has been useful to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any accurate prediction from 30 years ago will suffice.

 

[Catawba]

When do the Kyoto Accords go into effect globally?

To date, only 191 countries have signed and ratified the protocol

"Collectively, these countries will reduce their emissions 18% below their 1990 level between 2013-2020."
Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The US has not yet ratified the protocol.

 

[Catawba]

You may assert that AGW actually exists or you may assert that there are UFO's that visit our planet regularly and actually are in orbit right now, but there is a cloaking device that keeps them absolutely undetectable to any kind of tracking device known to man.

Challenge either of these. It's pointless. Both are presented in a way that removes any possibility of falsifiability.

If something is so ridiculous that it cannot be proven and cannot be disproven, then challenging it is folly.

There is one fact that is unassailable in this science. It has never been proven and all predictions made using AGW Science have been laughably inaccurate.

Thank you for the science denier perspective.

 

[Catawba]

With your familiarity with this scrutiny, you should be able to reveal for us the formula that states the rate of diminishing effect of additional CO2 at the concentrations currently in our atmosphere.

Whatcha got?

I have no idea what you are talking about, I don't speak science denial.

 

[code1211]

To date, only 191 countries have signed and ratified the protocol

"Collectively, these countries will reduce their emissions 18% below their 1990 level between 2013-2020."
Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US has not yet ratified the protocol.

As time marches on and the world sees the emptiness of the "science" behind the swindle, support for the con artists seems to be evaporating.

From your link:

At the 2012 Doha climate change talks, Parties to the Kyoto Protocol[17] agreed to a second commitment period of emissions reductions from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020, which takes the form of an amendment to the Protocol.[18][19][20] The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine.[17] However, a last minute objection at the conference by Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan indicates that they will likely withdraw from the Protocol or not ratify the Protocol amendment.[21] Collectively, these countries will reduce their emissions 18% below their 1990 level between 2013-2020.[17] The targets may be strengthened by 2014.[17][22] The emissions targets specified in second commitment period will apply to about 15% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.[23][19][clarification needed] Several Annex I Parties who participated in Kyoto's first-round have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period, and are Japan, New Zealand, and Russia. Other Annex I Parties without second-round targets are the United States (which never became a member to Protocol) and Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol effective 2012).[24][22]

 

[code1211]

Thank you for the science denier perspective.

Why is it that when I assert that there are at least 20 factors the could be affecting climate and that CO2, while it may be a factor, is certainly a weak one that you call me a denier.

You, on the other hand, deny that the other 20 or so factors have any impact on climate and assert that modification CO2 emission will nullify the impacts of all of the other factors.

I deny nothing while you deny most and yet you call me a denier.

Are you sure you know what that word means?

 

[code1211]

I have no idea what you are talking about, I don't speak science denial.

This does not surprise me. Here is an article that you can use to reveal to yourself why the predictions made by the folks who are warning of the upcoming AGW disaster have been so wrong.

The formula to which I referred is contained in the graphs that show the real world warming.

Of course, this only explains why the real world effects don't match the dream world predictions, so it may not be acceptable for you to read. *Content Warning*

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide | Watts Up With That?

 

[Catawba]

As time marches on and the world sees the emptiness of the "science" behind the swindle, support for the con artists seems to be evaporating.

From your link:

At the 2012 Doha climate change talks, Parties to the Kyoto Protocol[17] agreed to a second commitment period of emissions reductions from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020, which takes the form of an amendment to the Protocol.[18][19][20] The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine.[17] However, a last minute objection at the conference by Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan indicates that they will likely withdraw from the Protocol or not ratify the Protocol amendment.[21] Collectively, these countries will reduce their emissions 18% below their 1990 level between 2013-2020.[17] The targets may be strengthened by 2014.[17][22] The emissions targets specified in second commitment period will apply to about 15% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.[23][19][clarification needed] Several Annex I Parties who participated in Kyoto's first-round have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period, and are Japan, New Zealand, and Russia. Other Annex I Parties without second-round targets are the United States (which never became a member to Protocol) and Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol effective 2012).[24][22]

You are confusing politics with science.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Why is it that those who claim to love science accept notions on faith as a matter of course?

What have I taken on faith?

There is very little about science that cannot be proven with math. There is almost nothing about religion that can be proven with math. Which discipline is more likely the home to your "science" of AGW?

What are you talking about?

I see your avatar is Dr. James Hansen. Is he also of the mind that science cannot be supported with proof? Gravity? Physics?

Idk who that is. My avatar is Peter Singer. Try again.

Einstein seemed pretty obsessed with proof and careful to acknowledge the feebleness of the understanding that even he possessed. I suppose, given this weakness in his approach, you would call him a denier. The quotes from Einstein below are interesting in light of your determined adherance to the feeble notion of AGW. i don't recall his exact words, but Einstein was pretty clear that if everybody in the world said he was right and one individual proved him wrong, he was wrong.

If you have counter evidence that has been peer-reviewed and refutes climate change, please present it. Showing some blogosphere post isn't refutation, just in case.

As a doubter of a notion that has not been proven, all I need to do is doubt. As a proponent of the notion, it is incumbent upon you to prove your case. If that involves the suspension of curiosity, questions or logic, then so be it. Your proof will stand or fall on strength of its own foundation of facts.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"I do not like to state an opinion on a matter unless I know the precise facts."

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey? Doubt is a great thing in science. Science depends on doubt, hell it's a foundation of the scientific method - you don't accept things until evidence shows it.

The greenhouse effect has withstood about a century of scientific scrutiny.

I don't disagree. I'm sure code does, however.

Excuse my vocabulary. Please present the record of the science in this field that has been useful to explain and predict natural phenomena.Any accurate prediction from 30 years ago will suffice.

Well Dr. Peter Higgs predicted this thing called the "Higgs Boson" and there's a high probability it was located in CERN. Does that work? There's a prediction in science. Now, the field of science isn't about what's "useful" - but things have been predicted and been found to be occurring such as this.

 

[flogger]

I have no idea what you are talking about, I don't speak science denial.

Sadly you dont speak 'science' either

You are confusing politics with science.

Oh the irony ! :lol:

 

[OscarB63]

Dec. 23, 2012 — "In a discovery that raises further concerns about the future contribution of Antarctica to sea level rise, a new study finds that the western part of the ice sheet is experiencing nearly twice as much warming as previously thought.

The temperature record from Byrd Station, a scientific outpost in the center of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), demonstrates a marked increase of 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 degrees Celsius) in average annual temperature since 1958 -- that is, three times faster than the average temperature rise around the globe.
This temperature increase is nearly double what previous research has suggested, and reveals -- for the first time -- warming trends during the summer months of the Southern Hemisphere (December through February), said David Bromwich, professor of geography at Ohio State University and senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center. West Antarctica is changing a lot quicker than previously thought
The findings were published online this week in the journal Nature Geoscience."

Study shows rapid warming on the West Antarctic ice sheet

While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.

In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[OscarB63]

I have no idea what you are talking about, I don't speak science denial.

says the guy who claimed there were more people in the bottom 20% of the population than there were in the top 20% of the population. :lamo

what's next? a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers? :lol:

 

[flogger]

says the guy who claimed there were more people in the bottom 20% of the population than there were in the top 20% of the population. :lamo

what's next? a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers? :lol:

I must have missed that one. What a classic ! :lamo

 

[OscarB63]

I must have missed that one. What a classic ! :lamo

yeah, he was claiming that "the poor" spend more money than "the rich" and i posted statistics showing the income and expenditures of the population. top 20% spent more annually than the bottow 20% and his rebuttal was that there were more people in the bottom 20% so by extrapolation they still spent more. :lamo

and then he wonders why no one takes him seriously

 

[code1211]

Well Dr. Peter Higgs predicted this thing called the "Higgs Boson" and there's a high probability it was located in CERN. Does that work? There's a prediction in science. Now, the field of science isn't about what's "useful" - but things have been predicted and been found to be occurring such as this.

How does the Higgs Boson particle relate to the field of AGW? That is what I asked you to produce.

I understand that there is no accurate prediction in the history of AGW Science largely because the science is based only in notions and models.

If you can't find a suitable example, that's fine.

What I asked for:

"Please present the record of the science in this field that has been useful to explain and predict natural phenomena.Any accurate prediction from 30 years ago will suffice."

If the science of AGW is in truth a real science, then there should be plenty. If it is a sham, then there should be few. All I'm asking for is one.

 

[code1211]

What have I taken on faith?



What are you talking about?



Idk who that is. My avatar is Peter Singer. Try again.



If you have counter evidence that has been peer-reviewed and refutes climate change, please present it. Showing some blogosphere post isn't refutation, just in case.



I'm not sure what you are trying to convey? Doubt is a great thing in science. Science depends on doubt, hell it's a foundation of the scientific method - you don't accept things until evidence shows it.



I don't disagree. I'm sure code does, however.



Well Dr. Peter Higgs predicted this thing called the "Higgs Boson" and there's a high probability it was located in CERN. Does that work? There's a prediction in science. Now, the field of science isn't about what's "useful" - but things have been predicted and been found to be occurring such as this.

Sorry about mis identifying Singer. A comedian once said that as men age they look more and more like Sean Connery and, as women age, they look more and more like Sean Connery.

The notion of AGW is only acceptable if one accepts it on faith.

If doubt is good and nothing is accepted until doubt is eliminated or reduced to a minimum, does this mean that you, too, doubt the validity of AGW? If not, could you share the proof that has convinced you?

The Greenhouse effect is proven. Part of this effect is that every incremental increase in CO2 produces logarithmically reduced warming effects. Accepting only a part of what the effect is may be responsible for the wildly inaccurate predictions in this field.

 

[code1211]

You are confusing politics with science.

In this discipline, there is no discernible boundary.

The IPCC is the leading voice in the campaign to adjust the activities of man to correct the CO2 caused AGW. The IPCC is a political body.

 

[Manc Skipper]

In this discipline, there is no discernible boundary.

The IPCC is the leading voice in the campaign to adjust the activities of man to correct the CO2 caused AGW. The IPCC is a political body.

False claims mixed with fact, as usual from cultists.

The role of the IPCC:

"Collects and assesses for the use of decisionmakers
the best available scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the
risk of Climate Change, potential impacts and
response options.
• Provide scientific technical and methodological
advice to the UNFCCC
• The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it
monitor climate related data or parameters.

 

[Dezaad]

Let's put it a different way. Where ever I might choose to go or whenever I might choose to make the study, Gravity on the surface of earth acts pretty much the same way. I can tell stories about flying dragons or UFO's or levitation, but in the end, in the real and actual world, Gravity always exists. Whenever I have the misfortune to get a view of my descending behind, it is also evident that Gravity always wins.

To prove the existence of something that actually exists is not a real tough assignment. There are plenty of things that we cannot see that have effects that we can see, can measure, can record the variations that occur as results of the interactions and can use to make predictions of future variation due to future interactions.

Complex interrelationships, like powered flight, involve the usable implementation of the predictable cause and effect relationships between air, gravity, shapes, propulsion and all the rest that make a hunk of metal that has no business leaving the ground fly dependably and with certainty at 35,000 feet.

This is not the case with AGW. It does not act like powered flight or a virus or bacteria or a chemical reaction or magnetism or radiation or anything else that science has so accurately presented to us. It does not act like anything at all. It acts, in truth, like something that does not exist. It provides no basis for prediction. It does not respond to exterior influences and does influence other events. It is for all intents and purposes, an imagined and mythical construct.

For you to convince me that AGW exists, you must show me that it exists.

You are free to proceed.

You have confirmed my point:

Even if it exists, it is impossible to prove that it exists to your satisfaction. This is inherent in something as dynamic as the climate, and only after its effects are fully felt (and it is too late) would we have successfully 'demonstrated' its reality. And I am here to tell you that your bar for 'proof' is not rational. Here is why:

We as individuals and as a society must forecast the effects of our likely impact on the environment around us. The fact that we can influence that environment to our detriment is indisputable. Since forecasts for dynamic systems are not provable in the sense that you are wanting, we must do a risk assessment. We might be generally warming the atmosphere and causing climate change. Is it likely or not, and to what extent? Climate change might cause terrible economic disruption. Is it likely or not, and to what extent? Mitigating potential man-made climate change through measures now might cause economic disruption. Is it likely or not, and to what extent?

Those are (some of) the factors to the risk assessment, and none of the factors needs to be "proven" in order to make the assessment. Once the assessment is completed, the rational thing to do is to follow the dictates of that assessment. Where does the greatest risk lie?

What you are doing is essentially saying "Well if you can't prove it, there isn't any risk." This is just ignorantly false. The people you have been listening to have been trying to frame the issue as one of proof/not proof. Life just isn't that simple. For example, in business people are nearly constantly making business decisions based on forecasts involving dynamic systems. These forecasts cannot be proven. Nevertheless, the business people who are rational enough to make use of the best information available make the most money. Their acumen is unproven until after the fact, but it is a 'real thing that exists' nevertheless.

The evidence for a man-caused warming biosphere and consequent climate change is exceedingly abundant, but it is not proven in the sense that you desire, and again couldn't be even if it turned out to be true.

This is the reason some of us ask "What would 'prove it' to you?" It isn't a trap, it is just an effort to see where you are coming from, and address the issue on something closer to your own terms.

 

[Catawba]

yeah, he was claiming that "the poor" spend more money than "the rich" and i posted statistics showing the income and expenditures of the population. top 20% spent more annually than the bottow 20% and his rebuttal was that there were more people in the bottom 20% so by extrapolation they still spent more. :lamo

and then he wonders why no one takes him seriously

That's an idiotic interpretation of what I said. What I actually said was that the bottom 20% spends a higher percentage of their total income than does the upper 20%.

Its little wonder you cannot correctly interpret the scientific consensus of AGW.

 

[OscarB63]

That's an idiotic interpretation of what I said. What I actually said was that the bottom 20% spends a higher percentage of their total income than does the upper 20%.

Its little wonder you cannot correctly interpret the scientific consensus of AGW.

your original statement was the poor spend a higher %. which I agreed with and said was bS because it was actual dollars spent that counted and not %. to which you replied that the poor still spent more because there were more of them. to which i showed you the aforementioned statistics showing that the top 20% spent more than the bottom 20%. to which you made the idiotic remark I pointed out. and when I called you on it the only thing you could think to do was post a youtube video of george carlin.

:failpail: :lol:

 

[zgoldsmith23]

How does the Higgs Boson particle relate to the field of AGW? That is what I asked you to produce.

I understand that there is no accurate prediction in the history of AGW Science largely because the science is based only in notions and models.

If you can't find a suitable example, that's fine.

What I asked for:

"Please present the record of the science in this field that has been useful to explain and predict natural phenomena.Any accurate prediction from 30 years ago will suffice."

If the science of AGW is in truth a real science, then there should be plenty. If it is a sham, then there should be few. All I'm asking for is one.

The link I posted made a prediction and the result was actually found to be greater than the predicted estimate.

Sorry about mis identifying Singer. A comedian once said that as men age they look more and more like Sean Connery and, as women age, they look more and more like Sean Connery.

Apology accepted.

The notion of AGW is only acceptable if one accepts it on faith.

It's not faith if there is evidence.

If doubt is good and nothing is accepted until doubt is eliminated or reduced to a minimum, does this mean that you, too, doubt the validity of AGW? If not, could you share the proof that has convinced you?

Actually I could care less either way. If it exists, **** em; if it doesn't exist, **** em. :shrug:

The Greenhouse effect is proven. Part of this effect is that every incremental increase in CO2 produces logarithmically reduced warming effects. Accepting only a part of what the effect is may be responsible for the wildly inaccurate predictions in this field.

If you say so.

 

[code1211]

False claims mixed with fact, as usual from cultists.

The role of the IPCC:

"Collects and assesses for the use of decisionmakers
the best available scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the
risk of Climate Change, potential impacts and
response options.
• Provide scientific technical and methodological
advice to the UNFCCC
• The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it
monitor climate related data or parameters.

So we are in agreement.