What Do We Think About Climate Change

now when was the last time I avoided comment

speaking of which did you catch that first paragraph in the introduction which clearly defines the warming of the last 50 years or so being due to global green house gas emissions

what your trying to do is imply that a paper that is alluding to a local phenomenon as somehow relevant to our conversation concerning a global climate shift

its not

the concern is that the system has been thrown into an unusual flux and that the end result is that is an over correction resulting in a far more dramatic climate shift than is usual
the local events representing this flux are by and large irrelevant when considering the final result

specifically paragraph 1&2 of the introductions reads in part as follows to the best of my stenographic abilities

while some lack of understanding may be related to issues of translation its seems that the authors are making themselves quite clear
simply put your presentation of this article is a stellar example of a paper that agrees with the general theory of Rapid Global Climate Change

had you read it you might have noticed that its only suggesting that the oceans are large enough heat sinks to be a significant effect on the land masses in regards to local weather phenomenon
which is nothing new

why are you trying to confuse the issue of Rapid Global Climate Change with local weather forcing characteristics

cheers
B

 

Rapid Global Climate Change?
********. Prove it.

And prove it with your own words. Something like:
Climate (not temperature) is rapidly changing (compared with....) as is demonstrated by the following facts:
1.-
2.-
..........etc.

We'll debate that.

And also answer my post 5429 .

 

Here the link again to the Oceanic influences...

In this work authors do not quantify how much of the temperature increase is due to the various forcings. They avoid entering that discussion just saying it is under investigation. What is relevant is "...the substantial oceanic influence on land warming....the recent acceleration of global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined..." and "...the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales..."

So this guys, in a work supported by the NOAA, heavily criticise the IPCC 2007 report and say the oceans are a major contributor to continental warming, much more than GHG's. You have been saying till boringness the warming is due to GHGs. So now....?

And another interesting thing you also has avoid to answer, is that GHGs DO NOT always cause warming, but may do the contrary, as shown in the three works quoted in post 5446.

Don't be so Climatist and think with no prejudices.

 

More about glaciers and ice caps

Misconceptions on glaciers and ice caps melting.

"If precipitation exceeds melting the glacier advances: if melting exceeds precipitation the glacier recedes, but there will be a time lag between cause and effect. In ice sheets it may take many thousands of years for ice to flow from the accumulation area to the melting area. The balance between movement and melting therefore does not relate to today's climate, but to the climate thousands of years ago.
...............
Claims that ice sheets ‘collapse’ are based on false concepts. Glaciers do not slide on their bellies, lubricated by meltwater. Ice sheets do not melt from the surface down – they melt only at the edges. Once the edges are lost, further loss depends on the rate of flow of the ice. The rate of flow of ice does not depend on the present climate, but on the amount of ice already accumulated, and the ice sheet will keep flowing for a very long time. The ice cores show that the stratified ice has accumulated over half a million years and has not been deformed, remelted or ‘collapsed’. Variations in melting around the edges of ice sheets are no indication that they are collapsing, but reflect past rates of snow and ice accumulation in their interior. Indeed ‘collapse’ is impossible."

Professor Cliff Ollier's words, a "good standing with the community" guy , writing in the 2010 march edition of Geoscientist, the fellowship magazine of the Geological Society of London. (Page 16)

Glaciers – science and nonsense

 

What I found interesting in the report is that the level of tropispheric increase was found only in the models and not from observational data. Without a proven hotspot in the atmosphere, and they found none, C02 cannot be the causative agent here.

Interesting report, I wonder if nature itself could be the main causative force behing climate change -lol?

 

The glacial scare tactic is as invalid a symptom of warming as the polar bears. I recently had a conversation with a Ct. State Representative who being a liberal democrat is of course a priestess of the AGW movement. She used as an example of warming the breaking off of a section of the Antartic ice shelf several years ago. When I mentioned the conclusive evidence of volcanic activity being the cause rather than warming I got a just got a hit by a 2x4 stare and dead silence for about 10 seconds. She got even more perplexed over the consensus that wind currents not warming accounted for the bulk of the 2007 Artic ice melt off. Oddly enough, Penny Wong of Austrailia tried to prevent the dissemination of the Antartic volcanic evidence to the countries school children but only suceeded in forcing a disclaimer to be added to the report before it was taught. Seemed that natural causes didn't fit the agenda she was shoving down the throats of the nations young. In the likely collapse of the Austrailian government in the near future and new elections she will be the first to go when a rational government takes over. I understand folks all over the outback are gathering wood for the fire.

 

hmmmm
ice science in nonsense eh

ok
so are you denying that the ice is melting



kinda hard to argue its not
or are arguing that all science is nonsense

science is actually just a process by which data is observed and collated
the empirical method for instance

if you have an issue with the method please state it clearly and maybe I can help you through it


also this

reveals a few misconceptions concerning how science is conducted

Science seldom uses the term "proof" as science is far more open minded than that. If you are waiting for proof your going to waiting a long time.

What science does is through prescribed methods collect data, collated and presented in such a manor as to form a hypothesis. This hypothesis is presented to the community via a system of peer review and publication. The hypothesis is often tested via its ability to make predictions and if and only if those predictions prove accurate is it sometimes given the status of a theory. The Theory of Abrupt Climate change is one such theory that has passed these criteria.

Science operates by consensus from there in regards to the level of confidence given to a theory by its constituency. The confidence level in the Theory of Abrupt Climate Change is extremely high (90%+) and the consensus (~97%) is one of the largest ever enjoyed by any theory in the history of science

A theory is not in itself proof but instead comprised of data that when combined form a working model is able to accurately predict the effects of future alterations within the system defined. The consistency of these accuracies lends to the confidence within the theory and 90% is none to shabby.

As it turns out the amount of data being generated was so vast that it required an international effort to collate it all and a specific panel of scientific representatives from the world community was selected to perform this function. The IPCC.

These simple truths are one reason I keep asking the deniers to please present there work in a coherent form so as to be tested by its ability to predict. The deniers have refused on every occasion to even pretend to do so having no such working model that expresses there view of the data. Which is another reason the community as a whole scoffs at the industry that supports there pointless arguments. They simply have no merit within the scientific process.

you are nipping at heals rather than presenting a coherent argument in favor of your own theory and that is why the vast majority of scientists believe the science is settled and we are now moving on to observing the predicted changes and fine tuning the theory. There is simply no competing hypothesis let alone a working theory.

Some few are often left behind with the advent of new and developing theories. Case in point would be the advent of variable light speed theory. Those few tend to be the squeaky wheels that in this case never get the grease and simply may squeak to there hearts content as it will not change the forward momentum of science

there was some other wild accusation in there somewhere but I cant remember what it was so Ill have to go look it up and post again

hope that clears a few things up for you
and cheers
B

 

aha some question about post five thousand four hundred and twenty nine

but before I get started on that post I might point out that after five thousand four hundred and twenty nine posts that nothing has changed

The deniers keep asking if I or some other person with a science background can answer a question. Someone answers them and the answers go ignored and unacknowledged anyway, which is how the deniers got there name by the way. The simple reality is we all are bound to know that no answer no mater how forthright or extensive is going to placate the deniers basic proclivity to deny

as a great man once said

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

the post you have suggested Im ignoring has only one question in it and is otherwise a list of misc claims without any referenced sources

let me see what I can do with your one question

so once again you would like to look at a local weather phenomenon and compare it to the global co2 record
are you beginning to see the problem with your question and why no one bothered to answer it

please restate the question to represent the proper common denominator and we may go from there

class for today is adjourned
thank you for your time
your attendance is appreciated

cheers
B

 

Scatterbrained Climatist:
Don't post Artic ice extension graphs stopping at 2006 and beginning in 1980, because that is stupidly tricky (which I should not be surprised about coming from you). And perhaps you have not realized, as you always do because you dont understand even things in written, I did not question that ice melts, but questioned some misconceptions about such melting.

About the Greenland's "local weather phenomenon", may I remind you about your own position on this matter in this thread, stubborngly supporting Greenland was losing ice due to increasing CO2? (and equally on the Arctic ice, btw)

Don't be ridiculous, man!

 

Don't worry Boston. It is easy even for you. Let me give you an example based on something I had already posted:

OVERWHELMING REALITY:

- Sea level has been and still is rising at the same steady speed of around 1.5 mm/year since around 300 years, as a consequence of the planet coming out of the LIA.
- Artic sea ice extension increases and diminish in periods of around 30 years. It was in a diminishing trend till 2007 and seem to be again growing.
- Antarctic sea ice has grown at the pace of 100.000 km2 per decade since around 30 years. It switches mode with Antarctic.
- Polar bears populations are rapidly increasing since their hunting was regulated some 40 years ago.
- Hurricane’s activity index has been declining and it is in its lowest of the last 30 years.
- Bleached coral reefs have been recovering in the last years at a pace that surprises scientists.
- Glaciers are generally retreating after their huge advance during the LIA, to their previous state at the MWP.
- Global surface temperatures have been slowly growing at a steady state since the coming out of the LIA. Its exact amount is uncertain due to the varying conditions and diminishing number of land measuring stations.
- Tropical high troposphere is not warming but cooling with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmsphere.
- IPCC computer models’ projections totally fail to match climate reality at global scale, not to mention at regional scale for which they are totally inadequate.
- Planet is globally greening with the increasing athmosperic CO2 concentration and the mild global temperatures. This has been contrarresting inadequate man-made land use changes and permitting to produce increasing food quantities for the growing humankind.
- Malary and other mosquitoes transmitted maladies are retreating again thanks to the rising in 2006 of the the wrong banning of DDT in the seventies. Such maladies’ control have nothing to do with the control of anthropogenic CO2.

...etc

Let's try slowly again:
D-I-D-Y-O-U-G-E-T-I-T ?

 

Warmnotology, the science of the Climatists

Oh! I realize you never commented this:

"Warmnotology, formerly warmnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt on climate change, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Guillermo M. Gefaell a Boatdesign.net contributor specializing in the banging on the head of some stubborn real world denialists and IPCC computer models believers. Its name derives from the Neoclassical Greek words ζεστός, warm, ἄγνωσις, agnōsis, "not knowing" (confer Attic Greek ἄγνωτος "unknown"), and -λογία, -logia. More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where less understanding on climate subjects makes one more certain than before.

A prime example of the deliberate production of climate ignorance cited by Gefaell is the GWA conspiracy to manufacture data about the climate depending on antropogenic CO2. Under the banner of science, the IPCC, a group of poor practice scientists and some enviromentalist lobbies produced biased climate research about everything except global cooling hazards, to exploit public fears about GW and thus fulfill a political and economical interests agenda. Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness."

 

All of the recent data show the Artic ice sheet to be recovering to pre - 2007 levels. The melt off in 2007 did in fact happen, but not because of AGW, rather documented shifts in wind currents. Again mixing apples and oranges Boston posts charts from somewhere derived from unknown data about glacial retreats. Yawn! The glaciers have been retreating since 1850 or so, well before fossil fuels were an issue. Simple insulative formulas explain why it is speeding up as the more ground cover is exposed and they have nothing to do with C02 either.

Thanks again to Boston for outlining the scientific method once again. Perhaps he could forward it to the hacks at the IPCC and NASA along with a primer on ethics and responsibility. CC it also to Michael Mann, Jones won't need a copy though. He has had time to do his own research into that since his suspension for serious breeches of personal and professional ethics.

What we have seen in the thousands of posts here is how through doctored (adjusted) data, fraud, deception, lies and ego the scientific process has been bastardized and abused. Social agendas have taken over from environmentalism as the driving force behind the climate change debate. Such damage has been done to the credibility of the scientific community that it will take generations to overcome the mistrust that the AGW cults sowed in the public awareness.

 

well we can go back quite a ways and still show that as co2 increases ice and permafrost decreases world wide

for instance



and also regarding the previous posting

but the real point that deniers seems to be unable to grasp is that its not that ice does not advance and retreat cyclically, we know that it does rather it is the speed at which it is retreating that is the issue.



once again the focus of the conversation is that there is an unusually rapid shift in climate occurring

ok class dismissed for now
I have some spring gardening and yard-work that I have been neglecting since my back went out on me but
I feel lots better now

cheers
B

 

Comparing with what?


Is that the best information you can bring here? Are such poor pieces of permanent self-contradiction your best comments? Do you have a mental diarrhea? You should be able to do better at this height of debate. Are you really so ***** as Jimbo says?

I have told you before I think you really know nothing, understand nothing and refuse to listen nothing outside your Climatist Church of the Warmnotology. OK, enjoy yourself, but let me tell you it is quite frustrating to watch your futile attempts of hiding your poor reasoning and lack of knowledge by massively dumping here the same spiteful and biased information, as well as it is very sad to witness your naïve delusions of grandeur, instead of having the opportunity and the joy to learn something new and interesting from your posts.

 

oh the hostility
ouch

was it something I said

in order not to waist to much time explaining the same thing over and over Ill just repost a few of the previous responses to the same old tired questions

lets begin with the basic concept and then Ill ad a slightly more detailed look at one of the issues concerning our present ice loss crisis

ok well lets take a look at the ice loss issues then and start with some basic tools to help you get to the point were you might be able understand the material a little better

once you feel confident you have understood this information and are able to accept it then maybe we can continue however
to simply ask the same questions over and over is hardly a productive method of conversation ( I hesitate to use the term debate as there is simply nothing worthy of debate being presented )