'1600 years of Ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen'

by designs 165 Replies latest social current

• 

  Berengaria

  Interesting your use of the term "troll" Burn . You of the massive cut n pastes often having nothing to do with the thread subject. There only to obfuscate the actual discussion. Even more interesting is your accusation of another poster lying. You have been caught on more than one occasion manipulating information that you then present as proof of your point. Anyone who is familiar with you would do well to question your posts. You are in fact the liar.

  I've been out of town for the bulk of the last week, haven't posted much at all, much less in response to you Burn. I'm sorry your feelings of persecution are so acute.
• 

  soontobe

  *SMH*

  From Frick to Frack and back to Frick again.
• 

  BizzyBee

  Not even an apology for a false accusation,

  Not.
• 

  steve2

  Oh guys really this is very personal and heat-inducing. I love it not. That's all we need is more emotional heat on our tiny and tired planet that is already warming up way too much due to humankind's years of thoughtlessnesses .
• 

  Satanus

  Eventually, we'll be able to go back to our original state, naked. Its because of heat that our evolution left behind most of our hairs. Cycles, everything is cycles. Naked, we came, naked, we go.

  S
• 

  steve2

  I do keep that in mind as I work out 5 times a week.
• 

  besty

  The only variable that explains the current rise in global temperature is human introduced CO2.

  I disagree with that. According to Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute

  Ahh Botchtower SocietyBurnTheShips soontobe raising the dead with the oldest zombie denier myths again :-)

  Svensmark's 1998 work suggesting the suns increased magnetic strength decreases the amount of galactic cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere which means less clouds (that GCR's seed clouds is a key part of the hypotheses) and therefore a warmer planet. It is a tiny minority view from a well qualified climate scientist, and therefore commonly quoted at length by deniers.

  The 3 main problems with his theory are:

  • Solar magnetic properties haven't changed over the last 3 decades and therefore can't explain climate change over that period
  • Galactic cosmic rays have shown no trend in the last 50 years, in fact they have increased since 1990 and if Svensmark is correct that should mean global cooling.
  • Cosmic rays aren't very good at seeding clouds - this is a 3 step process and whilst step 1 isn't controversial, step 2 has been shown improbable by at least 1 study is and step 3 not likely by numerous studies.

  Svensmark is proof that the scientific method including peer review is alive and well in climate science. Minority views are accorded respect and are subject to disproval - in thsi case categoric rebuttal.

  Now that you posting on climate change again BTS its a good time to ask if you are still sitting on the fence? I'd welcome your thoughts on:

  1 - Why human originated CO2 emmissions are not causing warming, if it is accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

  2 - Why any poster denying the consensus is better qualified than the 98% of climate scientists who agree with the majority opinion that human caused climate change is a fact, similar to evolution and gravity. (putting the deniers in the Flat Earth Club)

  3 - The role of deep ocean warming and its relative importance to land surface temperature (may as well throw in some discussion on ocean acidification as well)
• 

  designs

  The Nature Climate Change journal has an article by Virginie Guemas of the Catalan Institute Climate Sciences and discusses the trend of cooling starting in 2000 by showing that the oceans are taking up more warmth from the air which is slowing surface warming but not mitigating it altogether. They point out that the 10 hottest years on record began in 1998. La Nina- cooling trends and El Nino- warming trends. Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. Center for Atomspheric Research points out that surface warming can go from air to sea, land, glaciers and snow. 'Warming below 700 meters' in the oceans are the big concern.
• 

  mP

  Betsy

  I'd welcome your thoughts on:

  1 - Why human originated CO2 emmissions are not causing warming, if it is accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

  2 - Why any poster denying the consensus is better qualified than the 98% of climate scientists who agree with the majority opinion that human caused climate change is a fact, similar to evolution and gravity. (putting the deniers in the Flat Earth Club)

  3 - The role of deep ocean warming and its relative importance to land surface temperature (may as well throw in some discussion on ocean acidification as well)

  mP:

  A1

  There are many contributing factors to any change in temperature, its not quite as simple as blaming Co2. THere are countless other green house gases that are more potent than Co2, eg methane.

  A2

  Insulting the messengers is not a classy way to win any argument.

  Again given we have some graphs available, why do you continue to ignore changes in just the last 1000 years where temps and other measurements go up and down just like today ?

  A3

  THis is a statement, it has little to do with your assumptions about CO2 and climate change. If theres one area on earth that is least affected by humans its the deap oceans.
• 

  besty

  @mP - A1

  yesterday you said:

  Rambling about other factors hardly adds data or depth to any argument and makes you look at best uninformed or perhaps dishonest.

  today you seem to have found religion:

  There are many contributing factors to any change in temperature,

  Care to explain what has changed in the last 24 hours, where it's not all so simple any more? (I assume you don't feel rambling, uninformed and dishonest today)

  @mP - A2

  Insulting the messengers is not a classy way to win any argument.

  I am asking why you are better qualified than the overwheming majority of climate scientists and why you are supporting a minority fringe view. I apologise if equating this to being a Flat Earther insults you, but that is the equivalent. Of course you can use this as an opportunity to describe your climate science credentials.

  Again given we have some graphs available, why do you continue to ignore changes in just the last 1000 years where temps and other measurements go up and down just like today

  Are you arguing that because temperature has varied in the past, that human activity cannot possibly be responsible under any circumstances?

  @mp -A3

  If theres one area on earth that is least affected by humans its the deap oceans.

  Thank you for resolving the issues of ocean acidification and deap deep ocean warming. You should publish your findings for peer review.

  PS - is English your native language?