ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Hillhater said:
jimw1960 said:
Boy, I'd really like to get a CAT scan of some of you folks' brains. It really has to be wired differently to be so willfully and belligerently ignorant There are mountains of evidence all around you, not to mention the basic laws of physics, yet you persist in your misguided beliefs.
Click to expand...
Wired differently ? No, just kept open and receptive to rational thought, rather than accepting someone else's unproven "theory's" or failed models as unquestionable.
Sadly much of those mountains of evidence have been tampered with, adjusted, compensated, or interpreted before being presented as fact.
Click to expand...

Oh now, receptive and thinking IS wired differently than he and other trolls.
 
Interesting animated plot showing the evolution of CO2 concentrations going back 800,000 years. Hard to watch this and claim humans are not the cause. The preindustrial record is based on the Vostok Ice core record from near the south pole.
[youtube]gH6fQh9eAQE[/youtube]
 
This one is for rumme and his strawman argument that scientists in the 1970s predicted an ice age (hint: they sort of did, but not for another 30,000 years, and this was prior to the better understanding of the role of CO2 as an amplifier of the warming, and the verification of that understanding through ice core records).
[youtube]hWJeqgG3Tl8[/youtube]
 
Here's another one for all you guys who keep saying the models are wrong (and I keep asking, show me YOUR model).
[youtube]JKP9EXyd1so[/youtube]
 
...Which model would you like to see jim ?
Please note the actual measured obsevations also..
WGDEeh.jpg
 
Hillhater said:
Please note the actual measured obsevations also..
Click to expand...
While measuring the temperatures that high altitude balloons see is fun, not many people live on them - so from the perspective of how climate change affects people, it's meaningless.

(BTW upper atmosphere temperatures will DECLINE as the planet warms from AGW gases.)
 
Hillhater said:
...Which model would you like to see jim ?
Please note the actual measured obsevations also..
WGDEeh.jpg
Click to expand...

Obviously you didn't actually watch any of those videos. If you had, you would have learned that a signature of GHG induced warming is stable, or even cooling, temperatures in the stratosphere with warming at the surface through the troposphere. So, you showing balloon data for the upper atmosphere and comparing it to models of surface temperatures is intentionally misleading. You you are either the one who is intentionally trying to mislead, or you have been duped into believing a lie. Maybe you should take a science class and learn how to read a scientific journal.
 
Hillhater said:
ALL the plots, ..models and observed data ,..are MID TROPOSPHERE data.......directly comparable. !
Click to expand...
Nope. The surface of the Earth will warm, and has increased about .5C over the past 30 years . The stratosphere will cool, and has cooled 5-10C over the past 30 years. The mid troposphere will do something in between those two extremes. That's how greenhouse gases work.
 
Hillhater said:
The "models" are specifically designed to predic MID TROPOSPHERE temperatures BASED ON AGW CO2 GREENHOUSE THEORIES.
Click to expand...
The CMIP5 models are intentionally simplified, general purpose models designed to allow IPCC researchers to use common simplified models in their research, so they can compare apples to apples in their results. They are NOT restricted to the mid-troposphere. They are NOT intended to include all AGW effects.

From the CMIP5 web page:
=========
CMIP5 is meant to provide a framework for coordinated climate change experiments for the next five years and thus includes simulations for assessment in the AR5 as well as others that extend beyond the AR5. CMIP5 is not, however, meant to be comprehensive; it cannot possibly include all the different model intercomparison activities that might be of value, and it is expected that various groups and interested parties will develop additional experiments that might build on and augment the experiments described here.
=========

If the models fail to predict the observed result....the THEORY HAS FAILED.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, they are predicting the observed result - warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere.
 
billvon said:
Hillhater said:
The "models" are specifically designed to predic MID TROPOSPHERE temperatures BASED ON AGW CO2 GREENHOUSE THEORIES.
Click to expand...
The CMIP5 models are intentionally simplified, general purpose models designed to allow IPCC researchers to use common simplified models in their research, so they can compare apples to apples in their results. They are NOT restricted to the mid-troposphere. They are NOT intended to include all AGW effects.
Click to expand...
One of the most pathetic "wriggles" you have concocted so far bill !
The models fail to predict as expected....the AGW CO2 Theory is wrong !
 
Hillhater said:
One of the most pathetic "wriggles" you have concocted so far bill !
The models fail to predict as expected....the AGW CO2 Theory is wrong !
Click to expand...
I've already shown you the science behind it - science which has been replicated dozens of times by hundreds of scientists. At this point, you have to be a diehard science denier to continue the denials.

So deny away!
 
Hillhater said:
Sorry jim...
ALL the plots, ..models and observed data ,..are MID TROPOSPHERE data.
.......directly comparable. !
Maybe a simlified version of the chart will help you see..
NgXOUu.jpg
Click to expand...

You deniers always trot out that UAH RSS dataset which has been shown numerous times to be riddled with calculation errors. It is based on satellite data which does not directly measure temperature and needs to be corrected for orbital decay. Why do you totally ignore the actual surface temperature data sets that rely on, you know, actual thermometers? UKMet, NOAA, Japan Met Office, Berkely Earth, all have independently determined temperature histories of global average SURFACE temperature, which is what the models are calculating.
 
Hillhater said:
What ? The same "science" that was used to configure all those "models" that dont work as predicted ?
Click to expand...
The models work just fine.

Let's say you posted a graph of EV bike ranges. One line represented the range on a flat surface at 5mph. One line represented the range on a flat surface at 10mph. Etc etc.

Then someone tries an ebike, rides it around his neighborhood and his range doesn't match any of the graphs. What is your conclusion?

1) "It's all a LIE! Those graphs are FALSE! Ebikes suck!"
2) "Those are models that assume a constant speed on a flat surface with a specific bike - you probably weren't doing that."

The models are just fine - if you use them for what they are meant for.
 
Fossil fuels are essentially a historical battery for the sun over the last couple billion years, capturing the high CO2 levels in the air and converting into hydrocarbons stowed away in the ground, reducing CO2 levels over time. We are simply regaining a FRACTION of the high historical CO2 levels back during the dinosaurs, and in the process, getting a climate closer to theirs too. We're not going to get anywhere near theirs, of course, but the world definitely isn't ending. The dinosaurs had a greener planet than ours.
 
swbluto said:
Fossil fuels are essentially a historical battery for the sun over the last couple billion years, capturing the high CO2 levels in the air and converting into hydrocarbons stowed away in the ground, reducing CO2 levels over time. We are simply regaining a FRACTION of the high historical CO2 levels back during the dinosaurs, and in the process, getting a climate closer to theirs too. We're not going to get anywhere near theirs, of course, but the world definitely isn't ending. The dinosaurs had a greener planet than ours.
Click to expand...
Of course. Antarctica once had forests. That's good for the people living there; perhaps not so good for the people in Miami or Bangladesh.

Nothing we can do will "end the earth." We'll never wipe out lichens, cockroaches or grass. At best we can make it more miserable for the human species. Perhaps that's not a goal we should set for ourselves.
 
swbluto said:
Fossil fuels are essentially a historical battery for the sun over the last couple billion years, capturing the high CO2 levels in the air and converting into hydrocarbons stowed away in the ground, reducing CO2 levels over time. We are simply regaining a FRACTION of the high historical CO2 levels back during the dinosaurs, and in the process, getting a climate closer to theirs too. We're not going to get anywhere near theirs, of course, but the world definitely isn't ending. The dinosaurs had a greener planet than ours.
Click to expand...

No, the world will not end, but increasingly larger parts of it will become too hot or too underwater to inhabit. As Greenland and Antarctica continue to lose ice at faster rates, sea levels will rise faster and faster. This will take a couple hundred years to play out, but things will really start to get bad by the end of this century. You can expect at least another 2 feet of sea level rise by 2100, which is huge for cities that are already at or near sea level. Another 2C of temperature rise to go along with that will start making some places uninhabitable in summer. That amount is pretty much baked into the pie at this point. Another 5 feet of sea level rise and another 3-4C of temperature rise in the next century if we do nothing to slow it down. People like me who are pushing 60 won't be around to see the worst of it, but it is coming if we don't take action. Even though I'll be dead in 20 to 30 years, I still feel I owe to the younger generations to speak the truth and do what I can to promote action.
 
jimw1960 said:
..... I still feel I owe to the younger generations to speak the truth and do what I can to promote action.
Click to expand...
If you are sincere in that thought, you had better be VERY sure what you tell them is the truth.
What if your AGW assumption is wrong , and all these results that you predict are caused by some other natural effect (as they has been for previous similar events ). Then all your preaching of false hope for CO2 "control" is one big lie and those younger generations are wasting their resources and efforts on a pointless exercise.
Be sure you know the real facts before you start preaching your "truth"
Here is a starter for you, since you mentioned it in your rant..
But i do not expect you to accept it as it doesnt conform to your beliefs !
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
Click to expand...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
 
Hillhater said:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
Click to expand...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Click to expand...

Wait, so now NASA scientists are credible to you? If so, I agree. Jay Zwally is a very credible scientist. But maybe you should actually read the articles you cite beyond the headlines. Direct quote from the article:

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
Click to expand...

This will be the cause of accelerated sea level rise toward the end of this century. So, go hug a lump of coal.
 
Since when did someone "speculating ". (IE guessing ?) that..
..."It MIGHT only take a few decades"... "IF " losses continue"....."I dont THINK" .... etc, etc..
Since when is that a basis for any conclusion ??
Is that the type of "truth" that you tell to the next generation ?
Further, im sure you are aware that the localised "losses" in West Antartica have been associated with subsea volcanic action, not general warming !
You may also be aware that ocean temperatures (SST data) around the sea ice latitudes (76 - 55 s) are showing a negative trend ...contrary to the IPCC/AGW theory that melting sea ice should amplify the AGW warming effect ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top