ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

You know, fossil CO2 induced climate change is not a matter of debate among reasonable people anymore. Only totally useless reactionary tools and idiots dispute that it exists, it's a major problem, and that we have to take serious measures to correct it.

The measures we must take are still a matter of dispute among rational people. You should step aside and let the adults handle it for you.
 
You are welcome to your beliefs and comments, but that report was seriously flawed and misleading.
Why did they confine most of their analysis to the last 1300 years ?
Here is another howler !
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Click to expand...
Go research where they got that data for the last decade ..
 
Chalo said:
You should step aside and let the adults handle it for you.
Click to expand...

Show him how it's done.

Hillhater said:
. . . .that report was seriously flawed and misleading.
Click to expand...

Only to those who care about the truth. If they're only in it to complain and say "We're right, they're wrong" then the vegans will say animals cause global warming, etc. I say it's all the Catholic Church at fault, but nobody will give me the report that I can point to on it. I figure Opus Dei and the Priory de Scion are working together on this one.
 
Hillhater said:
I am pretty sure its bigger con than religeon and politics combined.
..but at least it makes for entertaining reading at times of boredom. :wink:
Click to expand...

More entertaining reading:
http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-future/sea-level

sea-level-rise1.jpg
 
It loses its entertainment value when it begins to sound like an echo !
Not surprising since they are all using the same data sources and IPCC model .
So, without wishing to echo myself, ...
...check the actual data source for those recent scary Sea level rises (93-2010) !
 
Warren said:
?.....Equating the science of climate change, with a religious cult is really tinfoil hat stuff. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Really ? ..i see so many similarities..
...... Leaders preaching armageddon, floods, famine, destruction of the human race !
.......playing on the vunerability of unquestioning masses.
...followers ignoring the distortion of facts and accepting the predictions ,... happy to give donations via taxes and inflated prices for promissed solutions.
..those "believers" refusing to accept any discussion that contradicts their belief, and refering to "non believers" as "deniers" or similar derogatory names.

Sadly, the "science" has been hijacked and corrupted ( sometimes even plainly ignored) to suit the desired message.
 
Hillhater said:
I was going to study that paper, but the very first graphic and paragraphs convinced me of its obvious bias ..so a decided no to wast an hour or so of my life !.. :roll:
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
Click to expand...
A conveniently brief time scale to present a false statement of the actual history of CO2 levels on our planet.
NASA obviously have an agenda ( likely focused on future funding i suspect) ..and seem happy to lend their name to anything which may assist that end game .
Sure , the climate is changing, warming currently, but this kind of bullshit does nothing to enhance the reputation of real science.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you had bothered to check the reference citation at the end of that sentence, it would be a little clearer to you. The reference leads to chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report. Based on the citation, it is talking only about northern hemisphere temperature, and it is talking specifically about an analysis of temperature reconstructions for the past 1,300 years and shows that we are warmer now that at any time in that particular analysis. You have to go back at least 125,000 years to find a time that was warmer, but keep in mind that is just for the northern hemisphere. On a global scale, you have to go back over a million years to find a warmer time, and the warming trend continues. The key sentence in the citation is,

"Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}"

Here is a link to section 6.6 of AR4, which that sentence is based on: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

Keep in mind that was AR4 from 2007 and the global average hottest year record has been broken 6 or 7 times since then. IPCC has since published AR5 and the global hottest year on record has been in and AR6 is in the works. Hottest year on record has been broken for the past 3 consecutive years. Global CO2 concentrations are going to exceed 410 ppm next month--these are levels not seen in the past 4 million years. But keep believing it isn't happening if that helps you sleep better at night.
 
Hillhater said:
Its pointless discussiong solutions before the problem has been clearly defined and quantified.
Click to expand...

The problem is clearly defined: Humans emit too much greenhouse gases and it is causing rapidly increasing global temperatures.
The solution is also clearly defined: We need to cut carbon emissions by about 90 percent over the next few decades or future generations will be royally screwed. They will probably still be a little screwed even if we do cut carbon emissions since a few more degrees of temperature rise is already baked into the pie. But they will be REALLY screwed if we do nothing for another 30 or 40 years.

PS: by "future generations, I am talking about people who are being born today who will see the worst effect starting to kick in around the end of this century.
 
jimw1960 said:
Hillhater said:
Its pointless discussiong solutions before the problem has been clearly defined and quantified.
Click to expand...

The problem is clearly defined: Humans emit too much greenhouse gases and it is causing rapidly increasing global temperatures.
The solution is also clearly defined: We need to cut carbon emissions by about 90 percent over the next few decades or future generations will be royally screwed. They will probably still be a little screwed even if we do cut carbon emissions since a few more degrees of temperature rise is already baked into the pie. But they will be REALLY screwed if we do nothing for another 30 or 40 years.

PS: by "future generations" I am talking about people who are being born today who will see the worst effect starting to kick in around the end of this century.
Click to expand...
 
jimw1960 said:
.....The reference leads to chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report. Based on the citation, it is talking only about northern hemisphere temperature, and it is talking specifically about an analysis of temperature reconstructions for the past 1,300 years and shows that we are warmer now that at any time in that particular analysis. You have to go back at least 125,000 years to find a time that was warmer, but keep in mind that is just for the northern hemisphere. On a global scale, you have to go back over a million years to find a warmer time, and the warming trend continues. .......
....... Hottest year on record has been broken for the past 3 consecutive years. Global CO2 concentrations are going to exceed 410 ppm next month--these are levels not seen in the past 4 million years. But keep believing it isn't happening if that helps you sleep better at night.
Click to expand...

You simply re enforced my point...they limited the time scale to 1300 years..
....which conveniently ignors the Roman warming period, 2000 yrs ago (hotter than present for over 100 yrs) , never mind the earlier (even hotter and longer lasting) Climatic Optimum ..4000 years ago !
CO2 levels ..? I could state that current CO2 levels are at nearly the lowest ever known to exist on this planet, with the average being around 2000ppm and peaks of over 6000ppm.
..But that was over a much longer time scale which many seem to want to ignor, despite the fact that the planet flourished green and heathy during those times.
You see, its all in how you select the data and timescales, which is just one of the flaws in the IPCC reports.
I assume you understand the structure of the IPCC and where its funding comes from.
You should expand your reading material and allowing youself to believe everthing you read from a single source.
 
There are other records that go back over a million years, like the Vostok Ice core. We are warmer now than any any time in that record. Good God, man, look around. Shit is melting everywhere. I'm an Earth scientist who has studied this stuff for the past 20 years, so it seems so obvious to me. It boggles my mind how people cannot see what is going on, but I guess if you are not trained in the sciences, little things like thermodynamics and conservation of energy can be waived off as theories.
 
What exactly is an "Earth Scientist" ?
..but whatever the qualification, the most casual of research will reveal papers that show the current climate temperature (and CO2 levels) is far from being near any peak or even average the planet has successfully endured in the past .
You will also be well aware that sea levels have been much higher in the past and ice caps much smaller ..and vice versa.
...But there is no consistent correlation between climate temperature and CO2 levels !
....As a "scientist" you must know there are no "records" going back over a million years. But there is evidence, and that is also available over hundreds of million years which gives a much more reliable indication of the (lack of) connection between climate and CO2 levels.
 
Somewhat fat and juicy one here..

Arctic ice loss driven by natural swings, not just mankind: study

Natural swings in the Arctic climate have caused up to half the precipitous losses of sea ice around the North Pole in recent decades, with the rest driven by man-made global warming, scientists said on Monday.
Click to expand...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-arctic-idUSKBN16K21V
 
Also...
...in 2013 a panel of climate scientists merely said human influences had "very likely contributed" to the loss of Arctic ice, without estimating how much. It said that the ice could disappear by mid-century if emissions keep rising.....
Click to expand...
...and it could still disappear even if emissions are halted !!
....or it may just increase again with time ! :roll:
 
This is just classic denier ranting. You're embarrassing yourself.

Hillhater said:
You simply re enforced my point...they limited the time scale to 1300 years..
....which conveniently ignors the Roman warming period, 2000 yrs ago (hotter than present for over 100 yrs) , never mind the earlier (even hotter and longer lasting) Climatic Optimum ..4000 years ago !
Click to expand...

The Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Climatic Optimum & the Holocene Climatic Optimum all have attributable, natural causes. However the current warming does not compare, it is different because there is no natural cause to explain its extent. The difference is manmade CO2 emissions. Denying a link between CO2 in an atmosphere and warming of a planet isn't cautious or sceptical, it's retarded.

Let's quote Chalo's succinct wit again:

Chalo said:
You know, fossil CO2 induced climate change is not a matter of debate among reasonable people anymore. Only totally useless reactionary tools and idiots dispute that it exists, it's a major problem, and that we have to take serious measures to correct it.

The measures we must take are still a matter of dispute among rational people. You should step aside and let the adults handle it for you.
Click to expand...
 
Ahh yes, ...resort to the insults. :roll:
That defines the level of the discussion.
But you do acknowlege that there have been warmer climate periods in the past few thousand years, with attributable natural causes .
Unfortunate that you are so blinded by CO2 that you dont consider those same Natural causes might just be playing a part in the current climate ?
 
Don't worry, it's not as bad as some people who think they deserve a platform to have a "reasonable debate" on even more painfully obvious things like the existence of Gravity or a Flat Earth.

I'm not offhand familiar with how those warm periods compare exactly in terms of magnitude, rate-of-change and longevity. But those natural causes (which you have just acknowledged) have been carefully examined and excluded as possible causes of the current warming. How do you think decades of research by thousands of scientists arrived at the conclusion that the cause of the current warming is manmade? That they just guessed and didn't think to check if the sun was temporarily brighter?

I'm afraid that "I can imagine a possible flaw in this argument" doesn't equate to "I am likely to be correct".
 
Hillhater said:
What exactly is an "Earth Scientist" ?
..but whatever the qualification, the most casual of research will reveal papers that show the current climate temperature (and CO2 levels) is far from being near any peak or even average the planet has successfully endured in the past .
You will also be well aware that sea levels have been much higher in the past and ice caps much smaller ..and vice versa.
...But there is no consistent correlation between climate temperature and CO2 levels !
....As a "scientist" you must know there are no "records" going back over a million years. But there is evidence, and that is also available over hundreds of million years which gives a much more reliable indication of the (lack of) connection between climate and CO2 levels.
Click to expand...

I have BS and MS degrees in Hydrology, the study of the Earth's water cycle. I spent 3 years in Greenland on the ice sheet at the site of the GISP 2 ice core doing research on chemical interactions between the atmosphere and snow deposition. I currently work in water resources where we run computer models to simulate climate effects on groundwater recharge so we can properly plan for future water supplies. Previously, I worked on climate issues for nuclear waste disposal to evaluate how the climate could change over the next one million years. So, I know a few things about the evolution of climate science over the past 25 years and what the data and models are telling us.

You say that current CO2 level is far from being near any peak or even average it has endured in the past. In fact, you would have to go back about 4 million years to see CO2 levels as high at they are today. Humans did not exist at that time. The reduction in that CO2 came gradually over millions of years. In the past 200 years, we have undone what natural processes took a few million years to do. Here are some facts that are not in dispute:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it lets shortwave solar energy in, but absorbs longwave energy preventing it from being reflected back into space.
2. Humans emit 30 billion tons of CO2 each year from burning fossil fuels. That is more than 100 times all natural sources combined, including volcanoes.
3. For a given influx of solar energy, it is a relatively straightforward to calculate the amount of heat that will be retained for a given increase in a greenhouse gas concentration. This is not a theory, it is a simple manifestation of the laws of physics. You increase a green house gas, something HAS to get hotter. The only real uncertainty is how that retained heat gets distributed around the planet between land, oceans, and atmosphere.
 
Hillhater said:
What exactly is an "Earth Scientist" ?
...But there is no consistent correlation between climate temperature and CO2 levels !
....As a "scientist" you must know there are no "records" going back over a million years. But there is evidence, and that is also available over hundreds of million years which gives a much more reliable indication of the (lack of) connection between climate and CO2 levels.
Click to expand...

Let me address these last two points, which are incorrect. First, there is very clear evidence of the "correlation" between CO2 and temperature. But the correlation by itself is not enough. There has to be an understanding of the physical processes that produce that correlation. These processes are well understood and therefore the correlations are explainable and the understanding of these processes gives us predictive capability, although not with out some uncertainty. Computer models provide the means for exploring these uncertainties. There are at least 42 independent, peer-reviewed global circulation models that I am aware of and they ALL show that human CO2 causes warming. My challenge to you is to show me YOUR model that explains how you can add 30 billion tons of a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and NOT cause warming. Someone could get a Nobel prize for that, but they haven't done it because they would have to reinvent the laws of physics.

Second, don't get bogged down in semantics on how you define a "record." Ice cores provide excellent records of past climate. Air trapped in million year old ice will give you clear record of what was in the atmosphere at the time the gas was trapped. The oxygen-18 isotopes in the ice around that air bubble will give a very reliable record of what the temperature was. So, yes, ice cores do indeed "record" the environment in which they were deposited. Same goes for tree rings, sea sediments, lake sediments, calcite deposits in caves, and so on...
 
Just found this cool website where they review news articles related to climate change. Each article gets reviewed separately by at least 4 qualified people with a PhD in a related field. http://climatefeedback.org/about/

Our first mission is to help Internet users—from the general public to influential decision-makers—distinguish inaccurate climate change narratives from scientifically sound and trustworthy information in the media. We also provide feedback to editors about the credibility of information published in their outlets.

Who we are
Each of our reviewers holds a Ph.D. and has recently published articles in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals. They are asked to conform to high quality community standards to contribute to our analyses.
Click to expand...

You can follow them on Facebook for a daily digest of articles they review. https://www.facebook.com/ClimateFeedback/
 
Hillhater said:
Its pointless discussiong solutions before the problem has been clearly defined and quantified.
Click to expand...
Amen! The cost of proposed 'fixes' can be quantified, but the benefits seem etherial. Reminds me of the central tenant of religion, altruism, "sacrifice and you will be rewarded, (but you'll just have to trust me about that reward thing)."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top