If you could pull your head out of the sand long enough to actually understand someones post it would help your case considerably.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: There are a large number of glaciers growing in the world.
Fantastic. Without even disputing your list with a questionable origin it's fair to say you've proved absolutely nothing at all.
What I said was 90% of glaciers worldwide are shrinking. Where's your sampling of glaciers that are shrinking? Oh, that's right, you don't look at evidence that disagrees with you.
For everyone else, according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service: "The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative" Source.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And this is just a sampling.
It's a horrid sampling. As rinselberg pointed out you have the Greenland Ice sheet listed as "thickening". You reply to his post by posting evidence showing the Greenland Ice Sheet is still melting.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: NASA satellites don't read the area of ice only, they also read the depth. There is no weakened ice there.
The images you post show surface area only. Again it's evident you don't understand what you're posting as evidence.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The arguement that the ice is melting, diminishing, softening, or otherwise disappearing in the Antarctic is just simply wrong.
The experts and evidence disagree with you: From the European Space Agency, Antarctica's Ice Loss On The Rise: "Three years of observations by ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing over 150 cubic kilometres of ice each year – considerably more than when last surveyed.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: But, we will not see what it is going to do until next year. What is clear is that this year it is in recovery and growing.
Just to help you out buddy, I've invented a new climate science term - it's called "Arn's Recovery".
To help explain this new term, I've modified a graph from NSIDC showing the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent for the month of November, 1978-2013. However, "Arn's Recovery" can be explained using almost any graph that utilizes an average. Source.
As you can see from the graph, "Arn's Recovery" is any data point that sits above the average. Lines have been drawn to these data points in red. These 'better than average' data points are all "Arn's Recovery" points. Likewise but not depicted, any year with a result more positive than the previous year, no matter how insignificant, is also a "Arn's recovery" data point, even if the long term trend is still negative.
"But FlyinFieros!", you proclaim, "We already have a term for that, it's called 'natural variation'." Right you are, however this term isn't named after the guy who keeps proclaiming a faux recovery.
"But FlyinFieros!", you proclaim again, "Even if you only showed the above average data points, the trend is still downward because the average is downward."
Exactly. "Arn's Recovery" is a term that describes nothing meaningful at all. Just like each time Arn is talking about "recovery".
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-27-2013).]
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling: "The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000."
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling: "The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000."
Good God, there doesn't seem to be ANY outdated and DEBUNKED papers that flyinfieros won't post or repeat.
Below are some very well documented debunkings of his latest crap.
Yes the Northern Hemisphere has been in a gradual ice decline since the last ice age. At present it is in a cold recovery.
The overall data supports this.
You can report ice loss every spring and summer and turn it into something it is not. As the winter progresses the ice deepens. This is a fact.
There is no relationship between CO2 and global temperature. That is self evident when you look at the CO2 data and compare it.
Sure the post Ice Age warming trend continues and varies from year to year but it is not man made, man driven, nor man controlled.
The Arctic ice field is in recovery this year and the Antarctic is a real problem for the Global Warming prognosticators. It continues in good health.
There is 0 evidence that supports the outlandish and concocted predictions of the IPCC , East Anglia, or the Gores and Suzukis of this world.
This is the reason the current hard winter in the Northern Hemisphere is a problem for them. The Arctic Ice field did not disappear this past summer, and the Global Temperature has not increased by 0.2 degrees per year for the past decade. There are fewer Hurricanes in 2013, There are not millions of climate refugees. The low lying islands have not been covered by the sea.
In short Chicken Little was not right. The Sky did not fall
The OFFICIAL tracking shows this. In the 30 years since 1983 the net increase in Global Temperature has been less than 0.1 degree. To all intents and purposes it is statistically the same temperature
The Antarctic summer melt is trending less melt in the past 3 years, not more. It is actually consistently high ice load actually higher than it was 30 years ago.
These aren't my figures. They aren't a blogger's opinion.
You are wrong. Trying to insult me doesn't work. You are becoming a fool.
SYDNEY/MOSCOW—A Chinese icebreaker trying to reach a Russian ship trapped in Antarctica has been halted by thick ice within sight of the stricken vessel and an Australian ship was now trying to help, an Australian maritime rescue agency said on Saturday.
The Snow Dragon was one of three icebreakers sent to free the MV Akademik Shokalskiy, which became stranded far south of Tasmania on Tuesday in ice driven by strong winds.
“Since the thick ice exceeds the ship’s icebreaking capabilities and an upcoming cyclone will exacerbate icy conditions, we have to temporarily stall the ship,” Snow Dragon captain Wang Jianzhong told the Xinhua news agency.
The trapped ship, the Akademik Shokalskiy, left New Zealand on Nov. 28 on a privately funded expedition to commemorate the 100th anniversary of an Antarctic journey led by famed Australian explorer Douglas Mawson.
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-28-2013).]
(CNN) -- Seventy-four passengers trapped aboard an expedition vessel in the Antarctic for nearly a week will have to wait even longer as a rescue ship slowly makes its way through thick ice and snow. The Australian icebreaker ship Aurora Australis was 11 nautical miles away from the Russian-flagged Akademik Shokalskiy early Monday, according to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. "It's hard to tell if it makes it through," said Lisa Martin, a spokeswoman for AMSA. "There are snow showers in the area that are causing bad visibility; conditions are deteriorating." Visibility was only about 200 meters (656 feet), not enough to assess whether the ice breaker can cut through. "It's a wait-and-see operation. It's a very complex situation," Martin said. This attempt by the Aurora Australis follows one by the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long, or Snow Dragon, which was just six nautical miles away from the trapped vessel when it couldn't get any closer due to unusually thick ice.
The "warmer temperatures" in Antarctica aren't what we think of as "warmer" it is a desperately cold place.
One can only hope this situation doesn't become tragic.
Originally posted by avengador1: To quote my friend Eric: "2 large ships stuck in ice during Antarctic summer. One of them an icebreaker. Al Gore could not be reached for comment."
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The OFFICIAL tracking shows this. In the 30 years since 1983 the net increase in Global Temperature has been less than 0.1 degree. To all intents and purposes it is statistically the same temperature
Further proof you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
You claim an increase of 0.1 since 1983, yet the graph you posted begins at -0.25 and ends at nearly +0.2 - totaling .45°C between start and finish.
The UAH dataset itself shows a warming trend of +0.128°C/decade. Source. At 3.5 decades that's +0.444°C, strangely close to the 'start and finish' total.
Your claim of +0.1°C in 30 years is laughable - again your own evidence clearly disagrees with you.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The Antarctic summer melt is trending less melt in the past 3 years, not more. It is actually consistently high ice load actually higher than it was 30 years ago.
Scientists believe melt water from glaciers is contributing to sea ice expansion in Antarctica: “Our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt” Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: These aren't my figures. They aren't a blogger's opinion.
The images are not yours, correct. But all the nonsense you posted in addition to the images is your own wishful thinking.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You are wrong. Trying to insult me doesn't work. You are becoming a fool.
Actually Arn, it does work.
Every time you open your mouth you show us how little you actually think. I would struggle to find a post of yours that isn't infested with blatantly false claims. Some of these claims are so blatantly false your own post contains evidence that discredits it. You are your own worst enemy. You're constantly wrong and completely ignorant, when not in total denial, of where you're wrong.
Really I must thank you. You constantly show us how poorly thought out the argument against anthropologic global warming actually is.
Apparently the unnecessary compliment aboard are being helicoptered out as soon as the weather permits it to get into the air
Here is part of the update
According to Chris Turney, an Australian professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales, the ship was surrounded by ice up to nearly 10 feet (3 meters) thick. It was about 100 nautical miles east of the French base Dumont D'Urville, about 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, Tasmania.
How about a rousing chorus of "in the good ol' summertime"?
Originally posted by Arns85GT: It seems the sea ice nearest the equator in Antarctica is particularly fragile this year
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: To quote my friend Eric: "2 large ships stuck in ice during Antarctic summer. One of them an icebreaker. Al Gore could not be reached for comment." .
I stand by for more bullhorn-style-multicolored-text posts from Arn repeating previously debunked nonsense in a pathetic attempt to drown out reality rather than confront it.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-30-2013).]
The ice that is pushed out over the ocean is melted by the warm ocean currents flowing under it. What else is news?
When the scientists went to examine it NASA reports
For five years, a scientific expedition tried reaching Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in a remote, wind-ridden corner of Antarctica. The obstacles to get to the ice shelf were extreme, but the science goal was simple: to measure how fast the sea was melting the 37-mile long ice tongue from underneath by drilling through the ice shelf.
The international team, led by NASA's emeritus glaciologist Robert Bindschadler and funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA, had to abort their mission in 2007 due to logistical challenges after becoming the first people to ever land on the ice shelf. On their next try, in 2011, bad weather prevented the scientists from reaching the ice shelf until it was too late in the field season to carry out their science. It wasn't until December 2012 that the team was finally able to install scientific instruments.
Those measurements taken on and below the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf have yielded their first scientific results, determining the rate at which warm sea water is eating away the ice from underneath the floating portion of the glacier.
This is an ongoing phenomenon
The ice is up to 4000 meters thick. The current temperature today is -24 Celsius noaa but colder at the Russian research station at -28 C.
In fact it is so cold that when volcanic heated water comes to the surface it sublimates into ice dust. It is literally too cold to snow in the interior.
You'll have to try fooling somebody else into thinking the Antarctic Ice Field is melting. It just ain't so. You can fool some of th people some of the time.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: <snip> The ice that is pushed out over the ocean is melted by the warmincreasingly warmer ocean currents flowing under it.
Fixed that for ya'.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-30-2013).]
Since you generally fail to comment on your colossal embarrassments, I'll take it you've accepted defeat on the petition with 39 climate scientists. I'll take the same on your blatantly false "+0.1°C warming over 30 years" nonsense.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You'll have to try fooling somebody else into thinking the Antarctic Ice Field is melting. It just ain't so. You can fool some of th people some of the time.
The link you failed to cite for the quote you cherry picked clearly states Antarctica is melting. I find it deceitful you stopped quoting NASA immediately prior to the paragraph that disagrees with you: "In a paper published in the journal Science on Sept. 13, the team describes how at one of their study sites, halfway down the ice shelf, the melt rate was as high as 2.36 inches (6 centimeters) per day.
... Such features are important for adjusting models so they can accurately predict ice melt and its contribution to sea level rise." Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The ice that is pushed out over the ocean is melted by the warm ocean currents flowing under it. What else is news?
Ocean warming is melting Antarctica from below, this melt is accelerating according to the study you quoted with that NASA article but failed to cite: "An expedition to the ice shelf of the remote Pine Island Glacier, a major outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that has rapidly thinned and accelerated in recent decades, has been completed." Source.
This is in agreement with other evidence that says Antarctica is melting at an increasing rate: From the European Space Agency, Antarctica's Ice Loss On The Rise: "Three years of observations by ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing over 150 cubic kilometres of ice each year – considerably more than when last surveyed.
It must be really inconvenient to constantly have your own posts disagree with you. It's like you have multiple personality disorder.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-30-2013).]
The agency that tracks polar ice reported Tuesday that winter coverage of sea ice in Antarctica has set a 33-year high. The ice hit its maximum extent on Sept. 26, at the peak of Antarctic winter, when it covered 7.5 million square miles of the Southern Ocean. That’s a half-percent increase over the previous record, set in 2006.
and
Compared to the change in the Arctic, what does the Antarctic summer minimum look like? Well, the trend there is definitely opposite to the Arctic trend — summer sea ice is growing through time. But not by that much. And this past summer melt season did not set any record; it was only the sixth-highest minimum in the satellite era.
Again, let’s average the first five years of the satellite record, from 1979 to 1983. In that period, the sea ice left at the end of the summer melt season covered about 13.8 percent of the surface of the Southern Ocean. In the most recent five years, the average rose to 14.6 percent of the ocean. of course the Arctic summer melt is a whole other subject having bottomed out this past year at 24% and which we've discussed ad nauseum
You just posted evidence the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica has "rapidly thinned and accelerated in recent decades"
Gee, could it be that water from the melting glaciers is contributing to sea ice?
“Our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt” Source.
Growing Antarctic sea ice isn't the smoking gun you're pretending it is. More than likely it's just a metric for how much Antarctic glaciers are melting. Freshwater freezes a lot easier than salt water, melting glaciers are adding freshwater to the surface.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-30-2013).]
First look at 2012. I've highlighted the melt area you are talking about. It comes from underwater volcanic activity
Now 2013
Notice how much harder the lines are in 2013. Notice the same melting area on the west side of the continent
Of course the Government monitoring service doesn't show us the continental borders within the ice field.
The reason being the land ice builds up and pushes outward. In December (the good ol' summertime down there) the ocean currents gnaw away at the edges and this year they are losing ground.
There is still a record amount of ice down there. It is not disappearing, and is not threatened.
You still have not accounted for the eason the world Temperature has not gone up the 0.2 degrees C each decade for the past 10 years. You still have not accounted for the reason the world's islands are not being swamped as was predicted. You still have not accounted for why there are more polar bears You still have not accounted for why there were only 13 tropical storm events in the Caribbean and 2 hurricanes You still have not accounted for the reason the ice did not disappear this past summer in the Arctic.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-01-2014).]
If you want peer reviewed reading on the Global Warming Petition Project look here
It is all available by pdf.
You can go through and vett all 31874 signers to see if they are entitled to hold an opinion contrary to your own. I would put it to you that there is a body of scientific knowledge and expertise you are carefully ignoring and discounting.
Abstract Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m−2 over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m−2 occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.
1. Introduction How often have we heard “Wow it's cold, where is global warming?” How can we get a cold and snowy winter with anthropogenic climate change? Most people recognize from their own experience that we have weather in all its infinite and wonderful variety, so that there are large variations in temperature and precipitation from day-to-day and week-to-week. The biggest climate change we experience is the one from summer to winter, or from winter to summer, or in the tropics from the wet monsoon season to the dry “winter monsoon.” We expect these changes and even look forward to them. Our planting and harvesting of crops depend on them. Yet every summer is different, and so is every winter. There are “regimes” of climate where one summer may be sunny, dry, and hot, whereas another may be cool, cloudy, and wet. Globally, the biggest cause of such regimes that last several seasons is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Since the major 1997/1998 El Niño event that affected weather patterns around the world, the term “El Niño” has become part of the public vernacular and not just a scientific term. Yet somehow, when talking about human-induced climate change, often referred to as “global warming,” the idea that it is not relentless but rather occurs along with natural fluctuations from ENSO, weather, and other modes of variability has often been lost.
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record. Since global warming really reared its head in the 1970s in the sense that the global warming signal emerged from the noise of natural variability, every decade has been warmer than the previous ones and increasing evidence suggests that the past few decades are warmer than any others in the past 2000 years [IPCC, 2007]. However, there has been a slowing in the rise of global mean temperature over the past decade, often referred to as a hiatus or plateau. Has global warming stalled? Or is it entirely expected that natural variability rears its head and can offset warming for a decade or two?
Figure 1. Estimated changes in annual global mean surface temperatures (°C, color bars) and CO2 concentrations (thick black line) since 1880. The changes are shown as differences (anomalies) from the 1901 to 2000 average values. Carbon dioxide concentrations since 1957 are from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, whereas earlier estimates are derived from ice core records. The scale for CO2 concentrations is in parts per million (ppm) by volume, relative to a mean of 320 ppm, whereas the temperature anomalies are relative to a mean of 13.9°C (57°F).
In part the answer depends on what we mean by “global warming.” For many it means the global mean temperature increases. But for anthropogenic climate change, it means the climate change resulting from all kinds of human activities, and it is now well established that by far the biggest influence occurs from changes in atmospheric composition, which interfere with the natural flow of energy through the climate system [IPCC, 2007]. Referred to as “radiative forcing” by scientists, the biggest effect comes from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (GHG) (Figure 1) [IPCC, 2007]. Preindustrial values are estimated to average about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) but values in 2013 have exceeded 400 ppmv, a 43% increase, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. Several other GHGs (methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) have also increased from various human activities, while tiny particulates (aerosols) in the atmosphere can cause both warming by absorbing radiation or cooling by scattering and reflecting radiation back to space. The result is a positive (down) energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA). In that sense “global warming” really means global heating. Increasing global mean temperature is but one manifestation of the effects [Trenberth et al., 2009] (K. E. Trenberth et al., Earth's energy imbalance, submitted to Journal of Climate, 2013, hereinafter referred to as Trenberth et al., submitted manuscript, 2013). . . .
<snip>
4. Conclusions The picture emerging is one where the positive phase of the PDO from 1976 to 1998 enhanced the surface warming somewhat by reducing the amount of heat sequestered by the deep ocean, while the negative phase of the PDO is one where more heat gets deposited at greater depths, contributing to the overall warming of the oceans but cooling the surface somewhat. The Pacific Ocean appears to account for the majority of the decadal variability [Chen et al., 2008]. Nevertheless, the events in the Pacific undoubtedly also affect the Atlantic, Indian, and Southern Oceans as the system acts collectively to equilibrate to these changes in the flow of energy.
Kosaka and Xie [2013] have very recently performed some novel experiments that highlight the important role of the PDO in the apparent hiatus in global mean surface temperatures. They used a climate model with radiative forcing and prescribed SSTs over the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. Yet they were able to reproduce many aspects of the observed changes from 1970 to 2012, including the changes in global mean temperature and the recent pause in warming, and several regional and seasonal aspects. Accordingly, the key indeed seems to lie in the Pacific and the decadal tendency for more La Niña events (associated with Pacific decadal variability), as suggested by Meehl et al. [2011, 2013]. However, Kosaka and Xie [2013] did not deal with why the SSTs have changed as observed.
We can speculate that the huge 1997–1998 El Niño event was a trigger for the change in the PDO; certainly, it led to a large loss of heat in the Pacific [Balmaseda et al., 2013] that has taken years to recover from, if the recovery is even complete. Past behavior of the PDO (Figure 8) suggests that regimes can last for 25 years. The CCSM4 model has hiatus periods up to about 15 years in duration, projected during the 21st century when there is a positive TOA energy imbalance [Meehl et al., 2013]. Accordingly, it becomes very important for climate models to be able to simulate ENSO and Pacific decadal variability realistically, with the correct amplitude and duration as a form of natural climate noise in which any external signals are embedded.
Variations in climate forcings are important, especially when major volcanic eruptions occur and reverberations are felt for years. Natural variations in clouds, changes in the Sun, and increases in minor volcanic eruptions may have accounted for up to a 20% reduction in radiative forcing and TOA energy imbalance in part of the 2000s but the Sun has now recovered and is now a factor in increased warming (Trenberth et al., submitted manuscript, 2013). The changes in external forcings are not obvious in the CERES TOA observations (Trenberth et al., submitted manuscript, 2013). Hence, although important, the variations in natural external forcings are not an explanation of the hiatus, but rather internal variations within the climate system are keys.
Expectations for the response from an energy imbalance come from climate models, and rely on realistic simulations of variability on all time scales. Many models have difficulty in simulating ENSO, although ENSO amplitude is actually too large in the CCSM4 model. But the veracity of decadal variability in models is an issue. Climate sensitivity estimates are greatly impacted by such variability especially when the observed record is used to try to place limits on equilibrium climate sensitivity [Otto et al., 2013], and simply using the ORAS-4 estimates of OHC changes in the 2000s instead of those used by Otto et al., so that the entire system uptake changes from 0.65 to 0.91 W m−2, changes their computed equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.0°C to 2.5°C, for instance. Using short records with uncertain forcings of the Earth system that is not in equilibrium does not (yet) produce reliable estimates of climate sensitivity.
The PDO is essentially a natural mode of variability, although there are questions about how it is affected by the warming climate, and so the plateau in warming is not because global warming has ceased. The evidence supports continued heating of the climate system as manifested by melting of Arctic sea ice and glaciers, as well as Greenland, but most of the heat is going into the oceans and increasingly into the deep ocean, and thus contributes to sea-level rise. The analysis in this article does not suggest that global warming has disappeared; on the contrary, it is very much alive but being manifested in somewhat different ways than a simple increase in global mean surface temperature.
Acknowledgments This research is partially sponsored by NASA under grant NNX09AH89G. The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-01-2014).]
However, a reminder: It's "Global Warming". It's not "Volume of the Antarctic sea ice this year in what is currently just over a week beyond the Summer Solstice in the Southern Hemisphere".
Some people have trouble seeing the whole picture--putting together all of the relevant data. The recent history of this discussion is Exhibit A.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-31-2013).]
I try to keep track of what is being said here periodically. My impression is that the deniers don't want to change their lifestyles or suffer the expense involved in taking precautions. I get that! Maybe they actually don't believe the science. I don't get that unless it's like the religion thing. I have religious friends who believe that Noah could actually build a wooden boat that would carry two of everything living and everything that they would need to survive for forty days. I have known people who spent half their life building a wooden boat that they could sail away on. My religious friends also deny evolution theory in spite of all the supporting evidence. I'll still check in on this topic, but I don't expect any deniers to change their opinions when confronted by factual science. I'm willing to change my opinion, but so far the scientific evidence is trending enormously on the side of CO2 being a major problem.
Wait, didn't the alarmists just admit that global warming is not following the models? That for the last 15 years there has been no warming? Ok, never mind. They said it's a natural pause and to wait 30 years before drawing any conclusions. But the carbon tax is due today.
I try to keep track of what is being said here periodically. My impression is that the deniers don't want to change their lifestyles or suffer the expense involved in taking precautions. I get that! Maybe they actually don't believe the science. I don't get that unless it's like the religion thing. I have religious friends who believe that Noah could actually build a wooden boat that would carry two of everything living and everything that they would need to survive for forty days. I have known people who spent half their life building a wooden boat that they could sail away on. My religious friends also deny evolution theory in spite of all the supporting evidence. I'll still check in on this topic, but I don't expect any deniers to change their opinions when confronted by factual science. I'm willing to change my opinion, but so far the scientific evidence is trending enormously on the side of CO2 being a major problem.
Exactly. Like I've said many times I'll trust the experts over the internet hacks or pseudo science.
My opinion can be changed but it will take a major shift in what is an overwhelming scientific consensus on this subject.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-31-2013).]
i likely won't live to see if "global warming" is real. the deniers have managed to throw up enough chaff to make it difficult for me to reach a conclusion, but since i won't see it, and i leave no descendants to deal with it, i don't really care. man is adaptable, and will continue to rape mother nature, "Anthropogenic Global Warming" or not. business as usual. i'm a little surprised the elites aren't more interested in protecting their beachfront properties, but in the short term (an individual's lifespan) i suppose they don't really care either. meanwhile, there's a more pressing, more immediate concern. tax avoidance, and the costs to business (which is moot, because they'll just pass it on to the consumers anyway).
i do find the glimpses of underlying motivation interesting. this discussion on a car forum is much more about political predispositions and taxes than about climate or science. why else would anyone care, for what, 80 pages?
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 12-31-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Chicken Little, Look at the data
If you're going to keep up the 'chicken little' references, it would help if you weren't constantly wrong. Ironic I would get such a perfect example of your flat out wrong opinion after declaring the following:
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: You are your own worst enemy. You're constantly wrong and completely ignorant, when not in total denial, of where you're wrong.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: First look at 2012. I've highlighted the melt area you are talking about.
No, you did not highlight the area I'm talking about. The highlighted area is sea ice. I'm talking about glacier ice.
Originally posted by Hudini: Wait, didn't the alarmists just admit that global warming is not following the models? That for the last 15 years there has been no warming? Ok, never mind. They said it's a natural pause and to wait 30 years before drawing any conclusions. But the carbon tax is due today.
You sure do have a lot of outdated talking points that are unsupported by evidence. Evidently the result of someone who values entertainment over education.
I guess Chicken Little missed this posting. It shows the ice over land. However, the total ice load includes both land based and sea based ice.
The melting is on the land based ice that is below sea level. That is volcanic activity related.
The ice is up to 4000 meters thick. The current temperature today is -25 Celsius noaa
You missed this posted.
It shows the sea ice. However, it is virtually impossible to divorce the two and the Russian ship errantly believed itself to be in safe water to its own detriment and the souls aboard.
The sea ice in question has defied the icebreakers' attempts and cannot be in any way called a diminished or weakened ice field.
This part of the world has no physical symptoms of warming such as the Arctic Ocean has demonstrated.
I am still waiting for you to address these fundamental errors proclaimed by the AGW alarmists to scare the naive and western governments into adopting their socialist world agenda.
You still have not accounted for the reason the world Temperature has not gone up the 0.2 degrees C each decade for the past 10 years. You still have not accounted for the reason the world's islands are not being swamped as was predicted. You still have not accounted for why there are more polar bears You still have not accounted for why there were only 13 tropical storm events in the Caribbean and 2 hurricanes You still have not accounted for the reason the ice did not disappear this past summer in the Arctic.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-01-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: I am still waiting for you to address these fundamental errors proclaimed by the AGW alarmists to scare the naive and western governments into adopting their socialist world agenda.
By "AGW alarmists" you mean irrelevant people like Al Gore, not scientists.
But if that's now it works, I guess all religion is false because Pat Robertson predicted the end of the world in 2007 and it never happened.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You still have not accounted for the reason the world Temperature has not gone up the 0.2 degrees C each year for the past 10 years.
.2 degrees PER YEAR?
By 2100, that would put us at +17°C. Most consider us on track for +4°C by 2100.
Obviously you need to get your 'predictions' straightened out.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You still have not accounted for the reason the world's islands are not being swamped as was predicted.
You still have not provided a single recorded example of this prediction. Who said it?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You still have not accounted for why there are more polar bears
You still have not provided a single recorded example of this prediction. Who said it?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You still have not accounted for why there were only 13 tropical storm events in the Caribbean and 2 hurricanes
You still have not provided a single recorded example of this prediction. Who said it?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You still have not accounted for the reason the ice did not disappear this past summer in the Arctic.
You still have not provided a single recorded example of this prediction. Who said it?
Let's run down a list of what you've failed to account for: The 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, the 10 warmest years are all in the last 12 years. (1) The surface temperature in the USA is also rising. (2) Sea levels are rising and accelerating in the last 20 years. (3) Ocean heat content is rising. (4) Snow cover is retreating. (5) Glacier volume is shrinking. (6) And US climate extremes are increasing. (7)
Simple facts, supported by NOAA data.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-31-2013).]
So where are your bona fida's on these listed items?
The 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, the 10 warmest years are all in the last 12 years. (1) The surface temperature in the USA is also rising. (2) Sea levels are rising and accelerating in the last 20 years. (3) Ocean heat content is rising. (4) Snow cover is retreating. (5) Glacier volume is shrinking. (6) And US climate extremes are increasing. (7)
And you still have not accounted for the fact that all of the supposed carved in stone predictions of the AGW's have NOT COME TRUE AT ALL.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And you still have not accounted for the fact that all of the supposed carved in stone predictions of the AGW's have NOT COME TRUE AT ALL.
Arn
"Carved in stone" but you can't post recorded examples.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-31-2013).]
Originally posted by Hudini: Wait, didn't the alarmists just admit that global warming is not following the models? That for the last 15 years there has been no warming? Ok, never mind. They said it's a natural pause and to wait 30 years before drawing any conclusions. But the carbon tax is due today.
I don't keep track of what the alarmists said (not much interested in that).
Here's what one of the scientists said, as recently as 26 days ago (December 05, 2013):
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the hiatus in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6). This turns out, arguably, to have been the transition time from a positive to a negative phase of the PDO. The monthly time series (Figure 8) readily reveals the multidecadal regimes of the PDO (given by the black line) with positive phases from 1923 to 1942 and 1976 to 1998, and negative phases from 1943 to 1976 and after 1999. While naturally emphasizing the North Pacific, the pattern covers the entire Pacific with a somewhat ENSO-like pattern but one that is broader in the tropics [Chen et al., 2008].
If we now examine the hiatus period of 1999–2012 and compare it to the time when global warming really took off from 1976 to 1998 (Figure 9), the negative PDO pattern emerges very strongly throughout the Pacific although warming prevails in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and on land. In other words, it is the central and eastern Pacific more than anywhere else that has not warmed in the past decade or so. In spite of some cold European winters, Europe does not standout in Figure 9 and instead is a warm region. The AMO is positive (Figure 7) and is revealed in Figure 9 to be part of a wider warming.
Figure 9. Mean annual surface temperature differences from GISS for 1999–2012 and 1976–1998 in °C, with zonal means at right for ocean (blue), land (red), and zonal mean (black).
One approach to estimating ocean heat content (OHC) changes is by combining the available observations (surface, ocean, and from space) with an ocean model to produce a dynamically consistent ocean analysis. The new ORAS-4 ocean reanalysis from ECMWF has revealed very distinctive climate signatures that are realistic in magnitude and duration in terms of changes in OHC [Balmaseda et al., 2013] (Trenberth et al., submitted manuscript, 2013). Figure 10 shows the five ensemble members of the ORAS-4 ocean reanalysis OHC for 0–700 m and full-depth ocean and reveals the increased heating below 700 m depth of 0.21 W m−2 globally after 2000. The orange bars show the times of the El Chichón and Pinatubo volcanic eruptions when sharp drops occurred in OHC that quantitatively match estimates of TOA radiative changes (such as in Pinatubo) [Trenberth and Dai, 2007], as demonstrated in a new analysis by Trenberth et al. (submitted manuscript, 2013). ORAS-4 also reveals a major cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean in association with the 1997–1998 El Niño event. Following this, the ocean warmed at a startling rate of over 1.2 W m−2 from the 2000s for the global ocean (or 0.84 W m−2 for the global area), and the overall heating is estimated to be 0.91 W m−2 globally when melting sea ice and other components are included as well [Balmaseda et al., 2013] (Trenberth et al., submitted manuscript, 2013). More than 30% of the heat was deposited into the ocean below 700 m in an unprecedented fashion in the post 2000 record from ORAS-4 and was identified mainly with changes in the tropical and subtropical winds in the Pacific.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-01-2014).]
Wait, didn't the alarmists just admit that global warming is not following the models? That for the last 15 years there has been no warming? Ok, never mind. They said it's a natural pause and to wait 30 years before drawing any conclusions. But the carbon tax is due today.
sure none of models had a reduction in solar output in them all were based on constant avg solar output but the sun did not go with the models plan we had a spotless quite sun for a long time and reduced spot numbers for the whole cycle
oddly that is proof of the effects of CO2 as the sun did NOT WARM us as much as normal earth did NOT GET COLDER like it normally would have
but keep arguing ships stuck in the ice and never look at the BIG PICTURE esp if the truth has a cost you do not want to pay
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 12-31-2013).]
