Global Warming - don't wait up!

[MontyB]

No it doesn't it is not my job to convince you of anything, the evidence is out there and available to you all you have to do is read it and make your mind up and to be blunt if you are not prepared to do your own research and look at all sides of an argument then you are not really qualified to comment on the argument.

 

[senojekips]

No it doesn't it is not my job to convince you of anything, the evidence is out there and available to you all you have to do is read it and make your mind up and to be blunt if you are not prepared to do your own research and look at all sides of an argument then you are not really qualified to comment on the argument.

The evidence may be there, but it wouldn't convince anyone but those who already have had their minds made up for them.

Where your argument fails is that you always assume (Wrongly), that others have not read the "evidence".

 

[perseus]

Well i'm not going to waste my time posting temperature records and proxies I have already done this and you will simply claim it's all fabricated.

Here are the Glaciers and the Northern polar sea ice. Now you can't refute this by posting an odd year, or area but looking at the whole picture AND on a human timescale. Neither can you use timescales over which astronomical effects are known to occur!

North Pole Sea Ice trends

 

[senojekips]

When I first joined a research team I was told by the manager to always question things but never be skeptical to the point that you are looking for reasons to fail something and I think that this is precisely what both yourself and Spike are doing.

He would perhaps have done far better to tell you, "Don't make assumptions" because that is all you have done in this case.

You assume that I have not read the evidence, and you are too wrapped up in your preconceived assumptions to reason that perhaps why I feel the way I do is because I have read the evidence, not just one side of it, but both sides of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

North Pole Sea Ice trends

Ahhh, yes everyone focuses on the Arctic ice sheet because that is where the "bad" news is, but, that notwithstanding.

The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records. Source:http://www.icecap.us/

as we conclude our Summary with a brief review of the paper of Krinner et al. (2007), who used the LMDZ4 atmospheric general circulation model (Hourdin et al., 2006) to simulate Antarctic climate for the periods 1981-2000 (to test the model's ability to adequately simulate present conditions) and 2081-2100 (to see what the future might hold for the mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and its impact on global sea level). This work revealed, first of all, that "the simulated present-day surface mass balance is skilful on continental scales," which gave them confidence that their results for the end of the 21st century would be reasonably skilful as well. Of that latter period a full century from now, they determined that "the simulated Antarctic surface mass balance increases by 32 mm water equivalent per year," which corresponds "to a sea level decrease of 1.2 mm per year by the end of the twenty-first century," which would in turn "lead to a cumulated sea level decrease of about 6 cm." This result, in their words, occurs because the simulated temperature increase "leads to an increased moisture transport towards the interior of the continent because of the higher moisture holding capacity of warmer air," where the extra moisture falls as precipitation, causing the continent's ice sheet to grow.

More here:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/west_antarctic_ice_sheet.html

 

[perseus]

So what? It's the third lowest recorded in area, least in thickness.

Try trends not one off data quotes picked to mislead people.

You are just looking at Denier sites run by those with political motives. The stuff I post is representative peer reviewed, not intended to be alarmist anyway. Perhaps we should be alarmed.

 

[wdyx918]

I hate human beings.

 

[senojekips]

So what? It's the third lowest recorded in area, least in thickness.

Try trends not one off data quotes picked to mislead people.

Please do not be an idiot all your life, every new figure is a "one off". Of course you never read the data that supported the thought that although the northern polar icecap is decreasing, the southern icecap is actually increasing at a greater rate volume wise, leading to the idea that sea levels may well even decrease.

Naaahh,... of course not, that wouldn't suit your purposes.

 

[MontyB]

Please do not be an idiot all your life, every new figure is a "one off". Of course you never read the data that supported the thought that although the northern polar icecap is decreasing, the southern icecap is actually increasing at a greater rate volume wise, leading to the idea that sea levels may well even decrease.

Naaahh,... of course not, that wouldn't suit your purposes.

Do you have any data to back up the claim as I would regard the development of a large thin ice sheet to be very worrying as there would be little to hold it together and it would break up with even a moderate increase in temperature.

All I can find from a reputable source is:
It would appear that it is somewhat of a mirage rather than a contradiction.


Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming

It's the southern ozone hole whatdunit. That's why Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates. It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.
But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well.
Arctic sea ice is decreasing dramatically and reached a record low in 2007. But satellite images studied by Turner and his colleagues show that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in every month of the year expect January. "By the end of the century we expect one third of Antarctic sea ice to disappear," says Turner. "So we're trying to understand why it's increasing now, at a time of global warming."
In a new study, Turner and colleagues show how the ozone hole has changed weather patterns around Antarctica. These changes have drawn in warm air over the Antarctic Peninsula in West Antarctica and cooled the air above East Antarctica.
The Southern Ocean is home to some of the strongest ocean winds on the planet. The region between 40° and 60° South is well-known to sailors who call it the "roaring forties" and "furious fifties".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html

 

[captiva303]

what that turner guy is quoted to have said is very amusing...

"So we're trying to understand why it's increasing now, at a time of global warming."

 

[Bacara]

What sort of evidence do you want? The temperature record, sea ice and glaciers retreating, you will just dismiss it as a conspiracy. You rather believe front groups paid by the oil industry, or some non-specialist scientist who obviously has his fingers in the till than the 97% of climate scientists. How obvious does it have to be? It's amazing how successful the Deniers industry has been. I really wouldn't give then a chance based on the scientific evidence, but they are experts at lying and marketing. They specifically target older uneducated males with propaganda. And yes they believe it, Volcanoes emit more than humans, Medieval warm period, water is a forcing, Sunspots, absolute bollocks, what happens after you present the peer reviewed evidence which refutes it, wait a few months and repeat it, keep repeating it, until the brainless accept it. Like Hitlers speeches. Honestly it beggars belief do you realise how stupid they must think you are? Laughing all the way to the bank. Being a scientist/engineer is soul destroying, watching hard work being destroyed by mindless propaganda, it really is.

This is the sort of logic Deniers have

Someone, comes in the pub saying,

'there's a group of youth's hanging around your house with some gasoline and matches.' You say,

'No, just alarmist nonsense. Just theories, everyone blames the young for everything, how do you know they are going to set it alight?'

'I don't for sure but...,'

'there you are then'

'Well there has been a concentration of arson incidents around this area.'

'Statistics and lies, I can show you an area where its worse!'

'Well it's a good job your house is insured anyway.'

'I don't have it insured!'

i you watched the video you see my arguement, in the last 1000 years the temperature has flacuated a couple of degrees in both directions,the world did not end, the polar bears didnt go extinct, and humans werent putting out much cO2, also most of the warming happened when we were not putting out much CO2, most of the warming happened in the last 1800's, not during the massive industrial increases of the 30's and 40's, then the earths temperature went down. Also if something doenst sell, then those scienctist dont get funding, im dont think theres a huge conspiracy, but its there, go to any college youll find that out.

 

[senojekips]

Do you have any data to back up the claim ---snip---

Did you bother to read the source that I quoted in the original post?.... I guess not.

I'm not saying that it's correct, but it is another example of the dissent in the "scienterrific" community, and still you wonder why thinking people snicker at these clowns.

 

[perseus]

You have to carefully consider the source of the information, if you rather trust sites run by right wing political activists rather than scientists you will find the information to support your myths and conspiracy theories.

If you bother to read the latest IPCC Summary, you will find a balanced authoritative text, although somewhat out of date now. It's worth the time even for the pictures. You will even find some information which highlights the genuine uncertainties such as cloud albedo effect, rather than resorting to fake figures and solar nonsense.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

 

[senojekips]

There's always some excuse,..... and for every excuse you have I have a far more plausible counter excuse. I'm not going to get involved in this, "my black cat is blacker than your black cat, scenario".

I'll leave that stupidity to the eggheads,.... and then I'll throw my lot in with the last man standing.

 

[MontyB]

Did you bother to read the source that I quoted in the original post?.... I guess not.

I'm not saying that it's correct, but it is another example of the dissent in the "scienterrific" community, and still you wonder why thinking people snicker at these clowns.

You mean this one where you claim Antarctic ice is increasing?

Please do not be an idiot all your life, every new figure is a "one off". Of course you never read the data that supported the thought that although the northern polar icecap is decreasing, the southern icecap is actually increasing at a greater rate volume wise, leading to the idea that sea levels may well even decrease.

Naaahh,... of course not, that wouldn't suit your purposes.

I read it and asked if you had any data to back it up (I do not see any links in there) because the only information I can find from creditable sources (aka not a blog) says that while areas of Antarctica are growing other areas are shrinking and some areas have all but disappeared and it provides reasons for this (I threw in the brief overview as I doubt you read the link I supplied to back my case).

So once again got any sources to back up your argument that we can look over to form balanced opinions or are you just copying the blogs that suit your purposes, surely there is some "egghead" out there that backs your argument and is prepared to put his data up for scrutiny.

 

[senojekips]

You mean this one where you claim Antarctic ice is increasing?



I read it and asked if you had any data to back it up (I do not see any links in there) because the only information I can find from creditable sources (aka not a blog) says that while areas of Antarctica are growing other areas are shrinking and some areas have all but disappeared and it provides reasons for this (I threw in the brief overview as I doubt you read the link I supplied to back my case).

It was in the previous post, and I was not answering you so I probably had not read your answer or quote.If you are going to comment on what i say please at least follow the debate back to see what has been said. What about blogs that are sourced from other "Scientific" data. Like i said in one of my recent posts, I'm not quoting this stuff because i believe it, so much as to show that for every point your "experts" make there is another "expert" who deniies it.

So once again got any sources to back up your argument that we can look over to form balanced opinions or are you just copying the blogs that suit your purposes, surely there is some "egghead" out there that backs your argument and is prepared to put his data up for scrutiny.

There are plenty of eggheads supporting all sides of the argument. Which has been my point all along, its a "My black cat is blacker than your black cat debate" and therefor neither is of any real use, which makes it necessary for anyone with a brain to form his own opinions.

 

[perseus]

There are very few 'eggheads' supporting the Denier view, it is a mass distortion caused by the sheer number of scientists in the world, and the constant probing for the minority of them to sign petitions. 97% of climate scientists involved in the field support the consensus view, and the vast majority of scientists do in any field.

 

[perseus]

If someone has played the Antarctic card, any slight increase in sea ice there is more than countered by melting in the North.

Objection:

Sure, sea ice is shrinking in the Arctic, but it is growing in the Antarctic. Sounds like natural fluctuations that balance out in the end.
Answer:

Overall, it is true that sea ice extent in the Antarctic is increasing. Around the peninsula, where there is a lot of warming, the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent and dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf break ups. But the rest of the continent has not shown any clear warming or cooling and sea ice has increased over the last decade or so.
This is not actually a big surprise. In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations that CO2 dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north. The reasons lie in the much larger amount of land in the northern hemisphere and the fact that the ocean's thermal inertia and ability to mix delay any temperature signal from the ongoing absorption of heat. The local geography also plays a dominating role. The circumpolar current acts as a buffer preventing warm water from the tropics from transporting heat to the south pole, a buffer that does not exist in the north. You can read some more details about that here.
Does it "balance out in the end"? Not really, sea ice in the Arctic is reaching dramatic record lows There are other components of the cryosphere that we can look at as well, permafrost, the Greenland ice sheet, global glacier mass, and these all carry the Global Warming signal. One must look at the balance of evidence, not just those bits one likes. And this balance is clearly in agreement with all other indicators that warming is real and rapid.

 

[senojekips]

There are very few 'eggheads' supporting the Denier view, it is a mass distortion caused by the sheer number of scientists in the world, and the constant probing for the minority of them to sign petitions. 97% of climate scientists involved in the field support the consensus view, and the vast majority of scientists do in any field.

If your argument was half as credible as you seem to insist, there wouldn't be any deniers.

It's all happened before, and no doubt it will happen again, hopefully by that time more of the human race will have become a little smarter, and be aware of the tactics of those who try to panic people into making hasty and unwarranted decisions, about things they can't change even if they wanted to. Unless of course by that time we have learnt to control the weather.

 

[perseus]

If the Moon landing was 'credible' their wouldn't be any Moon landing Deniers, (9/11 conspiracy, alien Abductions etc) your argument is rubbish, it assumes that ALL (rather than most) people are rational, not motivated by seeing to be different, or encouraged through bribes. You don't wait until there is 100%, you will be waiting of having no-one in asylums, you will always have a few % corrupted or senile old retirees. Look at the age of the average Denier.

Just been told about a retiree called Mörner, Xhead of INQUA who thinks sea levels aren't rising.

He has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing..."[2]. In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[13] Mörner declined the offer.[14]

In 2004 the president of INQUA wrote that INQUA did not subscribe to Mörner's views on climate change

Think of Fred Hoyle, Pauling all x great scientists who then go off their head claiming nonsense.

 

[Bacara]

If the Moon landing was 'credible' their wouldn't be any Moon landing Deniers, (9/11 conspiracy, alien Abductions etc) your argument is rubbish, it assumes that ALL (rather than most) people are rational, not motivated by seeing to be different, or encouraged through bribes. You don't wait until there is 100%, you will be waiting of having no-one in asylums, you will always have a few % corrupted or senile old retirees. Look at the age of the average Denier.

Just been told about a retiree called Mörner, Xhead of INQUA who thinks sea levels aren't rising.

He has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing..."[2]. In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[13] Mörner declined the offer.[14]

In 2004 the president of INQUA wrote that INQUA did not subscribe to Mörner's views on climate change

Think of Fred Hoyle, Pauling all x great scientists who then go off their head claiming nonsense.

theres not this consenus that the media patrays, ALOT of scientist doubt it, and they are just underground because its almost a religon, if you dont believe in it, you are inferior.