Global warming 2019

[Subduction Zone]

At this point, SZ with all due respect, I have to figure that if you have put up the 'evidence,' (like the bit about the medieval warming period only affecting Europe) I figure that it is automatically suspect. I have to check it all out, especially when you do not (as you did not with the graph you provided) give any references or sources.

And you did NOT pay attention to the video, quite obviously....

But here...among other problems, try this: Global Warming Bombshell

From an author who states, IN THE ARTICLE TO WHICH THIS IS A LINK, he states:

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct globalcooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously–that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small–then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

The thing is, Mann's 'hocky stick' HAS been proven to be inaccurate, and as for whether 'that' is the 'hockey stick graph..."

Here is Mann's "hockey stick" graph.

Hmnn. I can see that graph when I upload it, but I can't see it when I look at the post once submitted.

Try this (I hope) https://skepticalscience.com/images/hockey_stick_TAR.gif

Amazing how much it looks like the one you put up....and for which, again, you provide NO reference or source.

No, The hockey stick bears very little resemblance to the graph that I posted. The problem with your "refutation"was that it was refuted itself. You can read more here:

Richard A. Muller - Wikipedia

And you should have asked for sources politely instead of repeating an old refuted claim. I am on my tablet now,and it is rather unwieldy for quotes etc..But I will find you a source !after today. you

Meanwhile you need to do much better than an old refuted opinion piece yourself.

 

[dianaiad]

You need to do some research on yourself of actual scientific research materials instead of citing non-scientific bad references. The graph is accurate and reflects a direct relationship with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. Simple direct scientific references remove the blue smoke and mirrors of phonies.

Y"know, the reference I gave you was even handed...and even from someone who is anything BUT a 'global client denier.' He used very clear scientific evidence to support his points.

Your criteria for evidence seems to be 'if this agrees with my preconceptions, it's good science, but if it doesn't, it's 'non-scientific bad references,' even if they are good scientific, properly vetted and supported. I believe that one should follow the science no matter where it goes, and one should absolutely LEAVE POLITICAL AGENDAS OUT OF IT!!!

 

[shunyadragon]

Y"know, the reference I gave you was even handed...and even from someone who is anything BUT a 'global client denier.' He used very clear scientific evidence to support his points.

Your criteria for evidence seems to be 'if this agrees with my preconceptions, it's good science, but if it doesn't, it's 'non-scientific bad references,' even if they are good scientific, properly vetted and supported. I believe that one should follow the science no matter where it goes, and one should absolutely LEAVE POLITICAL AGENDAS OUT OF IT!!!

I think you should LEAVE POLITICAL AGENDAS OUT OF IT!!!

No the source was not even handed nor a legitimate scientific source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Y"know, the reference I gave you was even handed...and even from someone who is anything BUT a 'global client denier.' He used very clear scientific evidence to support his points.

Your criteria for evidence seems to be 'if this agrees with my preconceptions, it's good science, but if it doesn't, it's 'non-scientific bad references,' even if they are good scientific, properly vetted and supported. I believe that one should follow the science no matter where it goes, and one should absolutely LEAVE POLITICAL AGENDAS OUT OF IT!!!

"Even handed" but wrong. That happens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I grabbed that graph earlier I was looking for one that showed the Medieval Warm Period. It was not Hockey Stick Graph. It was not even close. If you read the article that I posted on your physicist that thought that he had refuted the Hockey Stick (he had not) it would have told you that even without the treatment that he complained about the data showed the same results.

At any rate I grabbed a graph without checking the sources, but they could easily have been found. It turns out that was from Wikipedia and here is a short article on the graph and its sources:

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikimedia Commons

 

[Howard Is]

Pardon me for being simplistic, but if there is no global warming, why are the polar icecaps melting ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pardon me for being simplistic, but if there is no global warming, why are the polar icecaps melting ?

They are just rerouting the plumbing from the Hollow Earth. Nothing to worry about.

 

[Shaul]

Pardon me for being simplistic, but if there is no global warming, why are the polar icecaps melting ?

They are? The Antarctic icecap is growing.
If they do melt maybe it would be For the same reasons for when they did before humans?

 

[Howard Is]

They are? The Antarctic icecap is growing.
If they do melt maybe it would be For the same reasons for when they did before humans?

Figure 1b. This map compares Arctic sea ice extents between August 14, 2012 and August 14, 2019 from the NSIDC comparison tool.
From -
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

The Antarctic -
Sea ice in Antarctica is now shrinking, after decades of increases - CNN

So there is the correct data. The polar caps are melting.

“If they do melt maybe it would be For the same reasons for when they did before humans?”

Maybe.

But your refusal to accept that global warming is melting the icecaps tells me you don’t want to face the truth.

If global warming is not caused by human activity, but is nevertheless real, wouldn’t it be wise to stop doing those things which accelerate it ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

View attachment 32331
Figure 1b. This map compares Arctic sea ice extents between August 14, 2012 and August 14, 2019 from the NSIDC comparison tool.
From -
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

The Antarctic -
Sea ice in Antarctica is now shrinking, after decades of increases - CNN

So there is the correct data. The polar caps are melting.

“If they do melt maybe it would be For the same reasons for when they did before humans?”

Maybe.

But your refusal to accept that global warming is melting the icecaps tells me you don’t want to face the truth.

If global warming is not caused by human activity, but is nevertheless real, wouldn’t it be wise to stop doing those things which accelerate it ?

As I understand it, the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is accelerating. But we have nothing to worry about. All is well. No need to be alarmist about the sea rising significantly or radical changes in the weather that might effect food production. People can just move inland and displace or crowd those places and we can pay more money for less food.

What is funny is that for all the denial, big companies do accept the science and are taking measures to respond to it.

 

[Howard Is]

As I understand it, the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is accelerating. But we have nothing to worry about. All is well. No need to be alarmist about the sea rising significantly or radical changes in the weather that might effect food production. People can just move inland and displace or crowd those places and we can pay more money for less food.

What is funny is that for all the denial, big companies do accept the science and are taking measures to respond to it.

It is a huge investment opportunity.
There will be lots of new seafront land to sell.
These pinko greenies have no idea about how to make money.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a huge investment opportunity.
There will be lots of new seafront land to sell.
These pinko greenies have no idea about how to make money.

Absolutely. There are tons of ways to make money that alarmists haven't even taken time to think about, with all their wasting time worrying about crowding, loss of life, loss of biodiversity and the reduction in agricultural production.

 

[Shaul]

View attachment 32331
Figure 1b. This map compares Arctic sea ice extents between August 14, 2012 and August 14, 2019 from the NSIDC comparison tool.
From -
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

The Antarctic -
Sea ice in Antarctica is now shrinking, after decades of increases - CNN

So there is the correct data. The polar caps are melting.

“If they do melt maybe it would be For the same reasons for when they did before humans?”

Maybe.

But your refusal to accept that global warming is melting the icecaps tells me you don’t want to face the truth.

If global warming is not caused by human activity, but is nevertheless real, wouldn’t it be wise to stop doing those things which accelerate it ?

The sea land ice cap in Antarctica is still growing. The recent news was about sea ice. Sea ice varies. There were stories a few years ago about a supposed imminent collapse of the Ross ice shelf. They didn’t happen, it was a temporary blip. Just like the current Antarctic sea ice stories.

Don’t attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said there wasn’t any global warming.

No it would not “be wise to stop doing those things which accelerate it?”, if by that you mean wholesale abandonment of liberty into the hands of little Napoleons. There is no need for alarmism.

 

[Howard Is]

No it would not “be wise to stop doing those things which accelerate it?”, if by that you mean wholesale abandonment of liberty into the hands of little Napoleons. There is no need for alarmism.

Aha. That’s your issue. Don’t give an inch to the damned socialists.

And I thought we were discussing global warming.

How silly of me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 32331
Figure 1b. This map compares Arctic sea ice extents between August 14, 2012 and August 14, 2019 from the NSIDC comparison tool.
From -
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

The Antarctic -
Sea ice in Antarctica is now shrinking, after decades of increases - CNN

So there is the correct data. The polar caps are melting.

“If they do melt maybe it would be For the same reasons for when they did before humans?”

Maybe.

But your refusal to accept that global warming is melting the icecaps tells me you don’t want to face the truth.

If global warming is not caused by human activity, but is nevertheless real, wouldn’t it be wise to stop doing those things which accelerate it ?

This appears to be surface area of ice, but the mass of ice may still be growing as it has been for ages. When it comes to volume of ice that may still be growing. A decrease in surface area is if concern because water has a lower albedo than ice. That means loss of sea ice around Antarctica will increase the rate of warming. As to the mass of Antarctic ice it may still increase for a while The interior of Antarctica is a very very cold desert. Increasing temperatures could increase precipitation which is always so in the interior of Antarctica. It may take a bit more warming before the ice of the land mass begins to melt.

Quick Facts on Ice Sheets | National Snow and Ice Data Center

But this is not the case with Greenland. It is further off the poles and is not so safely tucked away from the Sun.

 

[sayak83]

Let's put it this way. I would give no more credence to various environmental scientists then the left have with the environmental impact scientists from British Petroleum.

They all have the same type of degrees, but you get the picture I hope.

I propose that you read a college level book on the physics of climate change. You are intelligent enough to do it. That way your rejection would at least be well informed one.

 

[Howard Is]

But this is not the case with Greenland. It is further off the poles and is not so safely tucked away from the Sun.

Yes, I saw the figures for Greenland melt a month or two ago. It was something in the order of gigalitres per second ? Maybe megalitres. More tha I could easily get my head around anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I saw the figures for Greenland melt a month or two ago. It was something in the order of gigalitres per second ?

I don't know. I would have to look it up.

Deniers claiming to be skeptics irritate me. I use to be a skeptic. I did not accept AGW years ago. But I would read the articles of those that posted against it and could see that too many on my side were deniers and I found that the actual work that seemed to oppose AGW were always local effects at best. When I finally saw that the icons of the anti-AGW crowd used the same bad tactics as creationists use that I realized they had nothing. If there was actual debate against the topic then such tactics would not be necessary.

 

[Howard Is]

“Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites and GPS stations scattered around Greenland's coast showed that between 2002 and 2016, Greenland lost approximately 280 billion tons of ice per year. This average annual ice melt is enough to cover the entire states of Florida and New York hip deep in meltwater, as well as drowning Washington, D.C. and one or two other small states.”
- Greenland’s ice is melting four times faster than thought—what it means

And this -
“Last week, the world received yet another stark reminder of what's yet to come as temperatures at the highest point of the Greenland ice sheet rose above freezing and melted the snow there for the first time since July 2012 and perhaps only the third time in the last 700 years. The glacier-covered island lost 12.5 billion tons of ice in one day.”
Greenland's Massive Ice Melt Wasn't Supposed To Happen Until 2070

And regarding Antarctica -

Polar Warning: Even Antarctica’s Coldest Region Is Starting to Melt

P.S. 280 billion tons per year is 767 million tons per day !
Which is 767 gigalitres.
Per day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites and GPS stations scattered around Greenland's coast showed that between 2002 and 2016, Greenland lost approximately 280 billion tons of ice per year. This average annual ice melt is enough to cover the entire states of Florida and New York hip deep in meltwater, as well as drowning Washington, D.C. and one or two other small states.”
- Greenland’s ice is melting four times faster than thought—what it means

And this -
“Last week, the world received yet another stark reminder of what's yet to come as temperatures at the highest point of the Greenland ice sheet rose above freezing and melted the snow there for the first time since July 2012 and perhaps only the third time in the last 700 years. The glacier-covered island lost 12.5 billion tons of ice in one day.”
Greenland's Massive Ice Melt Wasn't Supposed To Happen Until 2070

And regarding Antarctica -

Polar Warning: Even Antarctica’s Coldest Region Is Starting to Melt

Your Antarctica article has a misleading title. Once again it is the ice shelves that are floating on the water that are melting in East Antarctica. That will not change the volume of the ocean by much since a floating mass of ice displaces the same amount of water when it melts. It is a concern because when they do melt that will increase the rate of melting. Also they appear to conflate the shelf of the Totten Glacier with the entire glacier. The floating portion of it has already affected sea level. When that part melts there will be little increase in sea level, but as I already said a greater area would be ice free and overall warming will increase. The increase in warming due to the ice shelves melting is a major concern. But they should make it clear that the loss of those will not directly raise sea levels. That is the sort of abuse of the facts that is used by deniers of AGW.