ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Oh oh. "The Planet Is Going To Have Its Hottest Year on Record"
http://www.livescience.com/52212-the-planet-is-going-to-have-its-hottest-year-on-record.html
9_17_15_Brian_HorseRacingPlanet_720_518_s_c1_c_c.png
 
Chomper the tortoise came back out after unseasonably hibernating for about a month, ate some lettuce, then now he wedged his head into a corner and slept for a couple of days. Apparently the So Cali climate lately has him thoroughly confused. Or; since he's a Russian Tortoise, maybe he came out because Putin was visiting. :lol:
 
Here is more debunking of "facts" presented to me as actual facts:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

And how come nobody told med that the average lifecycle of co2 in the atmosphere is 4.1 year? That means that the accumulating effect is little compared to what I have been presented. Or the fact that the measured concentration of co2 in the atmosphere have been measured to 320 ppm in 1860 and 400 ppm today. I need some more proof about how damaging the co2 is for the climate, because when I read about what scientist says, the one not payed by the government who looses their funding if they are skeptical towards climate change, they don't find that co2 is harmful at all. And the gulf stream has been changing path for as long as it has existed...
 
Hillhater said:
LockH said:
Oh oh. "The Planet Is Going To Have Its Hottest Year on Record"
Click to expand...
....and the words there to note are ... " on Record" !
Click to expand...

Hehe... "million-year-old sediment records" clearly aren't looking at the "Big Picture" long range stuff. And "coldest year on record" 1911??? Clearly some folks have short memories.
 
LockH said:
Hillhater said:
LockH said:
Oh oh. "The Planet Is Going To Have Its Hottest Year on Record"
Click to expand...
....and the words there to note are ... " on Record" !
Click to expand...

Hehe... "million-year-old sediment records" clearly aren't looking at the "Big Picture" long range stuff. And "coldest year on record" 1911??? Clearly some folks have short memories.
Click to expand...

Every good scientist only uses the data that underpins h*s case :p
 
Ratking said:
Another funny little thing, this wooden boat went through the north pass in 1940-1944. How would that be possible if there was a colossal amount of ice there compared to today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Roch_(ship)
Click to expand...

Your link can take you right to the explanation.

Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen with a small expedition in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Changes in the pack ice (Arctic shrinkage) caused by climate change have rendered the waterways more navigable.
Click to expand...

800px-Northwest_passage.jpg
 
Ratking said:
And how come nobody told med that the average lifecycle of co2 in the atmosphere is 4.1 year? That means that the accumulating effect is little compared to what I have been presented.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with hacks second-guessing scientists. It does indeed take around 4 years for any given CO2 molecule to be removed from the atmosphere, but that's just one part of the complete carbon cycle. The time required for the carbon cycle to correct itself is more like 500 years:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

Do yourself a favour and skim down this list of debunked climate denier arguments: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

There is nothing new, there is no room for doubt on the fundamental issues, the science is settled. You wouldn't go to an accountant to get a tooth removed, so don't go to a politician, journalist or internet conspiracy nut for your science.
 
Punx0r said:
Ratking said:
And how come nobody told med that the average lifecycle of co2 in the atmosphere is 4.1 year? That means that the accumulating effect is little compared to what I have been presented.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with hacks second-guessing scientists. It does indeed take around 4 years for any given CO2 molecule to be removed from the atmosphere, but that's just one part of the complete carbon cycle. The time required for the carbon cycle to correct itself is more like 500 years:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

Do yourself a favour and skim down this list of debunked climate denier arguments: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

There is nothing new, there is no room for doubt on the fundamental issues, the science is settled. You wouldn't go to an accountant to get a tooth removed, so don't go to a politician, journalist or internet conspiracy nut for your science.
Click to expand...

Nothing is settled, not with that many variables. Making accurate models over the climate is so complicated and we don't have enough processing power or models close to accurate enough to get a definitive answer. Just by using a 64 bit resolution on the model you will get errors from LSB that makes colossal difference. I have mostly read data from Norwegian scientist, I can see if their data is available in English. This is a very complicated field that is hard to understand for even well educated scientist, so I don't pretend that I have the answer, but there is so much conflicting data, and more and more scientist are telling that the data is inconclusive. That the politics suppress these voices and try to shut them up does not make them lies. One of the biggest reasons why I see this as a hoax is the way the politicians drive the climate change as a weapon for taxation, restrictions and manipulation. And time after time we get doomsday speeches from prominent figures that later turns out to mean nada, nothing, just talk. You can laugh and call me stupid, but I just wish that people that force their belief on others(like you do) should be set accountable for their crime. In this case stealing my money in heavy climate-taxation, regulation regarding cars, motorcycle, snowmobile, flying and a bunch of other negative stuff that costs the world billions each year. And when the hoax is exposed, nobody is accountable and everyone that stole several hundred billions and a boatload of resource will go free. They enriched themselves on people like others(not you, because you fight for oppression) and me, but will not pay for their crime.

When the theory does not fit the facts, change the facts :p Or manipulate, blur and lie, as is so popular today.
 
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...-north-atlantic-has-scientists-worried/57734/
Friday, September 25, 2015, 8:18 PM - There's a blob of cold water in the North Atlantic Ocean, following a summer of abnormally warm temperatures -- and that has scientists concerned.

While the world appears to be heating up, an area south of Greenland and Iceland has been seeing the coldest temperatures in recorded history, according to data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Researchers say there's no mistake in the data. The chillier-than-usual area is densely-populated with buoys and along a well-observed shipping line.

There's no definitive answer as to why the blob is there, but scientists think it has to do with the slowing of circulation in the Atlantic Ocean.

In March a team of scientists published a paper in Nature Climate Change, arguing a massive ocean current called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is weakening.

AMOC is driven by temperature differences and the salinity of the water -- but a sudden injection of cold water can weaken the circulation.

So -- where is the cold water coming from?

The suggested source is melting glaciers in Greenland -- an area that's losing more than a hundred billion tonnes of ice annually.

Scientists aren't sure what this all means, but they're keeping a close eye on the area.
Click to expand...
 
Punx0r said:
Ratking said:
And how come nobody told med that the average lifecycle of co2 in the atmosphere is 4.1 year? That means that the accumulating effect is little compared to what I have been presented.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with hacks second-guessing scientists. It does indeed take around 4 years for any given CO2 molecule to be removed from the atmosphere, but that's just one part of the complete carbon cycle. The time required for the carbon cycle to correct itself is more like 500 years:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

Do yourself a favour and skim down this list of debunked climate denier arguments: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

There is nothing new, there is no room for doubt on the fundamental issues, the science is settled. You wouldn't go to an accountant to get a tooth removed, so don't go to a politician, journalist or internet conspiracy nut for your science.
Click to expand...

By reading on the list of debunked denier argument I can easily debunk the argument used for debunking in the first place. In fact, if you read some of my links, they prove that many of the points your site have is blatantly lies. Is that all you build your believe on? There are 176 claims, so it will take some time to go through them all.

Can I get some answers with your words?
1) How much co2 is produced by nature and how much is man made?
2) How many percent of the c02 in the atmosphere is due to human intervention?
3) water vapor in the atmosphere increase the greenhouse effect, but how much is due to vapor and how much due to co2?
4)Why do you warmists have to lie about the temperature before 1950 to prove your case? Is it because the data do not match the results you need for your belief?
5) If the whole climate case ends up being a hoax, how will you redeem yourself from all the propaganda you have spread?(that will indeed be the same for me, the only difference between me and the warmist/you is that I do not force my belief on anybody through force of taxation and regulation)
 
That the climate is, on average, warming and that this is caused by manmade CO2 emissions is settled and not open for debate. The uncertainty that exists (and which you interpret as uncertainty about global warming in general) surrounds what the local effects of this global warming will be. Some areas will get hotter, others drier, colder, wetter, windier etc. That is indeed hard to predict and requires more accurate models than are currently available (although they are rapidly improving).

Politicians and unscrupulous wealthy people will exploit climate change to tax people or extort money from them. If it wasn't climate change it would be something else they could exploit. That doesn't invalidate climate change. If a murderer uses a car doesn't make cars wrong. Do you really think that you would not be taxed if there was no global warming? What about before climate change was first noticed in the 1970's? Were people not taxed heavily back then?

Scientists who deny climate change will feel they are being shouted-down, ignored or pressured to change their views. This is because they are wrong and their colleagues (who greatly outnumber them) are embarrassed or irritated by them. This is peer pressure.

FWIW I have no interest in oppressing you and considering we live in separate sovereign states combined with my modest means, I doubt I have the ability to do so ;)
 
Ratking said:
[Can I get some answers with your words?
1) How much co2 is produced by nature and how much is man made?
2) How many percent of the c02 in the atmosphere is due to human intervention?
3) water vapor in the atmosphere increase the greenhouse effect, but how much is due to vapor and how much due to co2?
4)Why do you warmists have to lie about the temperature before 1950 to prove your case? Is it because the data do not match the results you need for your belief?
5) If the whole climate case ends up being a hoax, how will you redeem yourself from all the propaganda you have spread?(that will indeed be the same for me, the only difference between me and the warmist/you is that I do not force my belief on anybody through force of taxation and regulation)
Click to expand...

From memory only:

1) Much more CO2 is produced by nature than by man. This is a specious argument: It does not require much change to upset the balance. Think of a finely balanced weighing scale with a 100kg on each end and you add 100g to one side. There are also positive feedback loops at work.

2) Mankind has (IIRC) caused CO2 levels to increase from ~300ppm to ~400ppm. So ~25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere would be due to man (directly or indirectly).

3) Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas. This is another case of a positive feedback loop. A small increase in CO2 emissions causes warming, which creates more water vapour, which creates a larger warming effect, which creates more water vapour...

4) There are no lies about temperature trends. Although plenty of deniers claiming that cropped or altered graphs or the odd genuine publishing error is evidence of a lies and a conspiracy.

5) Err, CO2 levels are rising and the Earth is getting noticeably warmer. When will you accept you are wrong and the effect is real? When It only snows in Oslo once per year? Once every 10 years? Or never, because you keep moving the goalposts for "proof"?

Seriously, the arguments you detail above are all classic "denier" talk and have all been debunked long ago. I know this despite knowing relatively little about the subject - I am not an expert. The Skeptical Science website is just a good collection of many articles in one place and is easy to read. If you wish to check the source materials (references) it can all be found.

Also, science is not about "belief" and a scientific "theory" doesn't mean something is unproven.
 
Punx0r said:
Ratking said:
[Can I get some answers with your words?
1) How much co2 is produced by nature and how much is man made?
2) How many percent of the c02 in the atmosphere is due to human intervention?
3) water vapor in the atmosphere increase the greenhouse effect, but how much is due to vapor and how much due to co2?
4)Why do you warmists have to lie about the temperature before 1950 to prove your case? Is it because the data do not match the results you need for your belief?
5) If the whole climate case ends up being a hoax, how will you redeem yourself from all the propaganda you have spread?(that will indeed be the same for me, the only difference between me and the warmist/you is that I do not force my belief on anybody through force of taxation and regulation)
Click to expand...

From memory only:

1) Much more CO2 is produced by nature than by man. This is a specious argument: It does not require much change to upset the balance. Think of a finely balanced weighing scale with a 100kg on each end and you add 100g to one side. There are also positive feedback loops at work.

2) Mankind has (IIRC) caused CO2 levels to increase from ~300ppm to ~400ppm. So ~25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere would be due to man (directly or indirectly).

3) Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas. This is another case of a positive feedback loop. A small increase in CO2 emissions causes warming, which creates more water vapour, which creates a larger warming effect, which creates more water vapour...

4) There are no lies about temperature trends. Although plenty of deniers claiming that cropped or altered graphs or the odd genuine publishing error is evidence of a lies and a conspiracy.

5) Err, CO2 levels are rising and the Earth is getting noticeably warmer. When will you accept you are wrong and the effect is real? When It only snows in Oslo once per year? Once every 10 years? Or never, because you keep moving the goalposts for "proof"?

Seriously, the arguments you detail above are all classic "denier" talk and have all been debunked long ago. I know this despite knowing relatively little about the subject - I am not an expert. The Skeptical Science website is just a good collection of many articles in one place and is easy to read. If you wish to check the source materials (references) it can all be found.

Also, science is not about "belief" and a scientific "theory" doesn't mean something is unproven.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is where our path split. It is clear that you don't read any other sources than what you already have approved, what you take from memory does not hold true and your logic is inconsistent.

You know nothing about how fine the balance is, it is guesswork. you only try to read glimpses of data and comprehend it. How much has the global average temperature risen the last two decades? Where is the sensors located? If the sensors was located at farmland for 30 years ago and it is a city there now with higher temperature, how is that taken in to account? What method is used for documenting the increase? What about the lack of sensors 80 years ago, that is the temperature we compare with. On what basis can we compare today's reading with with that? You don't need to answer, I am pretty sure it is the same as always.
Sahara is getting smaller, Norwegian ice glaciers is not getting any smaller, Australia have record cold weather etc. But that means little, what does mean something is what people that work with this every day says, and if their data is scientific, testable, repeatable. I have my sources, and your sources is being taken with their pants down many times. Just wait and see, the truth will come one day.
BTW, no recordings of water increase in Norway, how is it in GB? Flooded yet? With all the ice melting, Netherlands should be flooded by now :roll:
 
Dauntless, I only meant to point out that your use of 'the' was conclusion-jump.
Just like most of what punxor recited from memory.

koolaid.jpg
Hehe, just having fun/trying to be light with it.

Thanks for the breath of fresh air ratking. If some of these people are actually serious, I hope they read and attempt to understand your well worded replies for themselves. There's plently out there to expand/improve narrowmindedness if one allows themselves to be objective and actually scientific in thinking.
 
If anyone was actually serious, someone would have questioned why everyone assumes CO2 is the only greenhouse gas.
Oh, because it's easier to dismiss all claims when you can cherry pick one data point.

Soooo...besides CO2, what about H2O, CH4, N2O, O3, halocarbons (perfluorocarbons, Hydrofluorocarbons, chloro-fluro-carbons, sulfur hexafluoride)?? All these have greenhouse effects, yet we only want to discuss anthropic CO2??
 
r3volved said:
If anyone was actually serious, someone would have questioned why everyone assumes CO2 is the only greenhouse gas.
Oh, because it's easier to dismiss all claims when you can cherry pick one data point.

Soooo...besides CO2, what about H2O, CH4, N2O, O3, halocarbons (perfluorocarbons, Hydrofluorocarbons, chloro-fluro-carbons, sulfur hexafluoride)?? All these have greenhouse effects, yet we only want to discuss anthropic CO2??
Click to expand...

You know, with several of those gases you are mentioning I agree, those are harmful, no discussion. But that just proves my point, co2 is the scapegoat for everything.
But several ozone damaging products that reacts with the ozone layer is prohibited with good reason, keep up the good work :)
 
Ratking said:
You know, with several of those gases you are mentioning I agree, those are harmful, no discussion.
Click to expand...
Why is this no discussion? This should be 9/10ths of the discussion.

Ratking said:
But that just proves my point, co2 is the scapegoat for everything.
Click to expand...
Ohhh, that's why you don't want in discussion...PFCs alone are 5,000-10,000x the global warming potential of CO2.

Ratking said:
But several ozone damaging products that reacts with the ozone layer is prohibited with good reason, keep up the good work :)
Click to expand...
I don't even know what this means...perfluorocarbons, Hydrofluorocarbons and chloro-fluro-carbons are not just a couple chemicals, they are entire chemical families.

Why would ozone reactive chemicals be prohibited at all if you're claiming there is no evidence to support climate reactions?

What quantity is "several"? "several" out of how much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top