What Do We Think About Climate Change

Who knows

 

No. what's balderdash is the impression Marco is trying to give that overall worldwide, glaciers are not shrinking.

I suspect that like a lot of balderdash that skeptics post on here, his list wouldn't stand up to a close scrutiny to begin with. And even if it's a hundred percent accurate, so what? There are at least 160,000 glaciers worldwide; the fact that a relative handful may be growing proves nothing worth mentioning.

Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers in 1850; only 26 remain. Which means more glaciers have melted just in Montana than there are on any skeptic's list of glaciers that are supposedly growing....

 

So, I went to the Norwegian site you listed, which happens to be the very first example you listed. Here is the specific link.

http://www.nve.no/en/Water/Hydrology/Glaciers/

Here is what it says as first bold faced heading in the article: "The Norwegian glaciers are still retreating"

Then they had a link to follow up on the headline, and here is what it said:

" 2009 - the glaciers are retreating

Twenty-seven glaciers were measured in 2009. The on-going general retreat is continuing. Twenty-two glaciers retreated, three glaciers showed minor change, and two glaciers showed some advance. The measured glaciers constitute around 14 % of the glacier area in Norway."

Remember, this is from the link you posted. Clearly, when you try to use that link to convince us that Norwegian glaciers are generally growing you are misleading us.

 

In another place the Norwegian website says "During the 1990s many Norwegian glaciers advanced substanially. They represented a major discrepancy compared to the global pattern. After 2000, the Norwegian glaciers behave in accordance with the global pattern. "

 

That's not really a Polar Bear anyhow, they all died the last time the sea ice disappeared. What happened to all the coal plants and suv's that made it melt the last time?

My earlier comments about the sea ice have as usual been misconstrued by the gloom and doom society. Plus the difference between the coverage in 2010 and the coverage in 1979 is less than 5%, hardly catastrophic or cause for alarm. That is my point!

 

The cherry picking is being done by the AGW crowd. Besides, there is no proof that glaciers that have retreated did so because of fossil fuel use.

 

Balderdash, as Hoyte would say. The vast majority of glaciers are retreating; no one has to cherry-pick to find them.

And your flat statement about there being no proof is contradicted by the majority of scientists worldwide; it's rather presumptuous of you to be claiming to have the ultimate word.

 

I suspected that post wouldn't stand up to a close look, and he may just have been copying and pasting something from a skeptic's site. It's a common ploy in such places: roll out an impressive number of links, quotes, facts and figures to make an argument look overwhelming, and hope no one checks them all..

Someone was trying to snow us, if you'll forgive the pun.

 

whats really interesting is
who do the deniers think they are fooling ?

there sources are found out every time and yet they insist on continuing to present them anyway
they either are obviously oil and gas industry funded sites involved in a disinformation campaign or they are wildly misrepresented as you have just found out

whats also interesting is that no mater how obviously the information supports the theory of rapid climate change the deniers will just imagine there own data and cheerfully present it as if no one will notice its completely bogus

oh well
I had a feeling it would not take long for our newest contributor to this thread to notice deliberate misunderstandings turning into blind insistence

 

It's amazing how Boston thinks he has any credibility left.

 

and who was it that just misrepresented the data so badly

one of the deniers wasn't it ?

at some point the deniers efforts kinda look like cognitive dissonance from a purely psychological point of view

one of them gets caught blatantly misrepresenting data and then this last bit of spit and venom

why

was your cause found to be deliberately and deceitfully misrepresenting the data so now its back to the childish insults and accusations

instead of lashing out in frustration you might chalk it up to a learning experience and be the better for it
fat chance of that happening eh

please feel free to quote any data that I quoted as supporting my view that then turned out to directly refute my view, feel free to point out were I used industry pr to support my view or where I misquoted or misrepresented any of the papers or researchers I have cited

best of luck with that

B

 

Glacial retreat is a 200+ year old phenomenon, while 'climatologically significant' anthropogenic CO2 releases have a ~60 year history, with ~60% of the total anthropogenic emissions FOR ALL TIME released within the last ~30 years. The only warming period that could ever have been plausibly linked to anthropogenic emissions was ~1979-1995.

Please explain how anthropogenic emissions that were 1/1000 of present could have caused glacial retreat in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The warmers will never adopt a 'threshold of significance' just as they will never divulge what empirical data would falsify their narrative.

Please tell us what, short of observing another 200 years of perfectly OK climate (which no one alive can do) despite rising anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels, would falsify the AGW narrative?

Please offer a 'threshold of significance' for anthropogenic CO2 emissions; an emission level that will not affect the climate adversely as alleged. Is it 1/10 of present (.8Gt/yr) ? Or is it 1/100 present (.08Gt/yr)? Or how about 1/1000 of present (.008Gt/yr)? While you decide upon a threshold (not likely) or once again defer to more platitudes and balderdash (much more likely), keep in mind two things:

• Atmospheric CO2 was rising at the points in history when anthropogenic emissions were at each of these levels.
  
  
• We can NEVER return to even the 1/10 of present emissions standard, as humans now emit more CO2 simply by exhaling.

Jimbo

 

how about a point by point response

Jimbo
Glacial retreat is a 200+ year old phenomenon, while 'climatologically significant' anthropogenic CO2 releases have a ~60 year history, with ~60% of the total anthropogenic emissions FOR ALL TIME released within the last ~30 years. The only warming period that could ever have been plausibly linked to anthropogenic emissions was ~1979-1995.

one simple graph proves you wrong on all counts



Jimbo
Please explain how anthropogenic emissions that were 1/1000 of present could have caused glacial retreat in the 18th and 19th centuries.

the premise of your question is inaccurate, please see previous

Jimbo
The warmers will never adopt a 'threshold of significance' just as they will never divulge what empirical data would falsify their narrative.

pick any spot in the last 800,000 years previous to the industrial age ( funny looking spike at the end of the graph ) and that will be just fine



Jimbo
Please tell us what, short of observing another 200 years of perfectly OK climate (which no one alive can do) despite rising anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels, would falsify the AGW narrative?

another 200 years ? we have actually developed accurate records going back nearly a million years and pretty good records but containing a slightly higher level of uncertainty going back hundreds of millions of years



Jimbo
Please offer a 'threshold of significance' for anthropogenic CO2 emissions; an emission level that will not affect the climate adversely as alleged.

please see previous

Jimbo
Is it 1/10 of present (.8Gt/yr) ? Or is it 1/100 present (.08Gt/yr)? Or how about 1/1000 of present (.008Gt/yr)? While you decide upon a threshold (not likely) or once again defer to more platitudes and balderdash (much more likely), keep in mind two things:

looks like about 280 would do nicely

Jimbo
* Atmospheric CO2 was rising at the points in history when anthropogenic emissions were at each of these levels.

uh huh, care to validate that within the data please

Jimbo
* We can NEVER return to even the 1/10 of present emissions standard, as humans now emit more CO2 simply by exhaling.

actually not
as our biomass increases we replace within the ecosystem other species and so total co2 from respiration is roughly a net zero, although if you want to include driving efficient species like buffalo to near extinction and replacing them with methane factories like cattle then yes our simple biological needs has added to the problem


love
B

 

Boston,

You did not answer even one of my points. All you did, all you EVER do, is bluff and bluster.

The graph YOU posted above shows that from 1751-1801, anthropogenic emissions were 1/1000 of present, yet as the Neftel, et al (Siple Cores) graphed data clearly shows, CO2 levels were rising, AT LEAST 100 years before the beginning of significant anthropogenic emissions:






Is it your contentions that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels at that time was the result of those anthropogenic emissions? Most 'warmer' scientists say that the beginning of significant anthropogenic emissions is ~1945. Look where that is on the Neftel, et al graph!

And since glaciers were retreating back then, is it your contentions that emissions 1/1000 of present caused that?

Answering the question of the threshold of significance with "looks like about 280 would do nicely " is just more childish silliness, since this is an atmospheric CO2 level, NOT an anthropogenic emission level. I'm asking what level of anthropogenic emission you believe is below the threshold of climatological significance and therefore acceptable. Your "280 ppm" answer is like someone saying "four o'clock" when someone asks you if a Cartier is a good wristwatch

The only biomass that reduces CO2 levels is plants, since all the animals (including us) are net emitters of CO2. Your warmer gurus even contend that plants are net emitters since their carcasses (wood) will rot and release CO2 at a much faster rate that they can sequester it. So again you offer only bluff and bluster instead of substance.

And what would falsify the narrative for you? You still won't answer that question.

Jimbo

 

I must say you guys are rather disappointing.

Clearly the Norwegian web site does contain contradictory information and I should have spotted that.
However to say that I am trying to deceive you by posting that, is a joke.
First of all it would be a waste of my time since you do not represent any public opinion nor lobby group, only yourself and your own opinions, so we are debating at a personal level here.
Second, coming from a warmist side, to accuse of deception is rather odd.

This thread must contain at least 500 hokey stick graphs, that have been demonstrated to be false, fabricated with false data or a program that picks the data to produce the wanted hokey stick.
And I am only naming one demonstrated deception. Should I list them all, I think I would be rather bored by the time I hit the first 2% in the deceptions list.

So like my grandmother use to say...if you live in a glasshouse don't throw stones.

And...after all...even if it were true that ALL glaciers are melting, and that the polar cap is ice free and that we are now able to grow corn in Antarctica, what does it matter? The only real and important issue is if it was caused by humans, not the wether patterns that have changed constantly for millions of years independently of who inhabited the planet.

But I suppose that such would be logic, and there isn't much of that left here.

I am off now to find a good Italian Ricotta Cake reciepe. A much more interesting subject to pursue.