Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Jump to new
macca said:
It pays a lot more if you are a believer !

This got a mention because it was the other way, imagine if they tried to list all the money flowing to the pro lobby, the names would come in faster than they could list them all
Click to expand...
Science does not pay well given the level of study.
Science is not a lobby.
You are very confused.
 
Ann said:
Two weeks after a new record was set in the Arctic Ocean for the least amount of sea ice coverage in the satellite record, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum—and set a record for a new high. Sea ice extended over 19.44 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) in 2012, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The previous record of 19.39 million kilometers (7.49 million square miles) was set in 2006.
Click to expand...
Ann, why do you keep digging up irrelevances from the past?
 
rederob said:
Ann, why do you keep digging up irrelevances from the past?
Click to expand...
Because it is interesting, relevant and beautiful. I would love to see it up until 2018, but for whatever reason NASA haven't updated yet.

Edit: The fact that 2012 saw both the Arctic at it's minimum and the Antarctic at its maximum is really interesting.
 
NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did

A new NASA study found that there has been a net increase in land ice in Antarctica in recent years, despite a decline in some parts of the continent. The study's lead author astutely predicted that climate science deniers would distort the study, even though it does nothing to contradict the scientific consensus on climate change or the fact that sea levels will continue to rise.

NASA Study Finds Antarctica Has Experienced Net Ice Gains In Recent YearsDue To 10,000 Year Trend Of Increased Snowfall. A new study by NASA published on October 30 in the Journal of Glaciology found that the Antarctic ice sheet has been increasing in recent years due to a 10,000 year trend of increased snow accumulation in East Antarctica. The study stated that ice losses in West Antarctica have been outweighed by East Antarctica's ice increases, but that this trend may reverse itself in only a few decades. From the study's press release:

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...ntist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612
 
Darc Knight said:
NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did

A new NASA study found that there has been a net increase in land ice in Antarctica in recent years, despite a decline in some parts of the continent. The study's lead author astutely predicted that climate science deniers would distort the study, even though it does nothing to contradict the scientific consensus on climate change or the fact that sea levels will continue to rise.

NASA Study Finds Antarctica Has Experienced Net Ice Gains In Recent YearsDue To 10,000 Year Trend Of Increased Snowfall. A new study by NASA published on October 30 in the Journal of Glaciology found that the Antarctic ice sheet has been increasing in recent years due to a 10,000 year trend of increased snow accumulation in East Antarctica. The study stated that ice losses in West Antarctica have been outweighed by East Antarctica's ice increases, but that this trend may reverse itself in only a few decades. From the study's press release:

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...ntist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612
Click to expand...
Hint for Ann:
This year is 2019
 
Ann said:
Gaaah! what is going wrong...again your links are not working for me Rob, sorry.
Click to expand...
Here's the summary, Ann:
We compare the results with a surface mass balance model to deduce the ice sheet mass balance. The total mass loss increased from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017. In 2009–2017, the mass loss was dominated by the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Sea sectors, in West Antarctica (159 ± 8 Gt/y), Wilkes Land, in East Antarctica (51 ± 13 Gt/y), and West and Northeast Peninsula (42 ± 5 Gt/y). The contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica averaged 3.6 ± 0.5 mm per decade with a cumulative 14.0 ± 2.0 mm since 1979, including 6.9 ± 0.6 mm from West Antarctica, 4.4 ± 0.9 mm from East Antarctica, and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm from the Peninsula (i.e., East Antarctica is a major participant in the mass loss). During the entire period, the mass loss concentrated in areas closest to warm, salty, subsurface, circumpolar deep water (CDW), that is, consistent with enhanced polar westerlies pushing CDW toward Antarctica to melt its floating ice shelves, destabilize the glaciers, and raise sea level.​
 
rederob said:
Here's the summary, Ann:
We compare the results with a surface mass balance model to deduce the ice sheet mass balance. The total mass loss increased from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017. In 2009–2017, the mass loss was dominated by the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Sea sectors, in West Antarctica (159 ± 8 Gt/y), Wilkes Land, in East Antarctica (51 ± 13 Gt/y), and West and Northeast Peninsula (42 ± 5 Gt/y). The contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica averaged 3.6 ± 0.5 mm per decade with a cumulative 14.0 ± 2.0 mm since 1979, including 6.9 ± 0.6 mm from West Antarctica, 4.4 ± 0.9 mm from East Antarctica, and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm from the Peninsula (i.e., East Antarctica is a major participant in the mass loss). During the entire period, the mass loss concentrated in areas closest to warm, salty, subsurface, circumpolar deep water (CDW), that is, consistent with enhanced polar westerlies pushing CDW toward Antarctica to melt its floating ice shelves, destabilize the glaciers, and raise sea level.​
Click to expand...

You give me data from 1979 and accuse me of old science! This is old news but research takes time I understand this, then it needs to be peer reviewed and then it needs to be published and then it needs to be distributed then it needs to be built into models as this one....

 
Darc Knight said:
NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did

A new NASA study found that there has been a net increase in land ice in Antarctica in recent years, despite a decline in some parts of the continent. The study's lead author astutely predicted that climate science deniers would distort the study, even though it does nothing to contradict the scientific consensus on climate change or the fact that sea levels will continue to rise.

NASA Study Finds Antarctica Has Experienced Net Ice Gains In Recent YearsDue To 10,000 Year Trend Of Increased Snowfall. A new study by NASA published on October 30 in the Journal of Glaciology found that the Antarctic ice sheet has been increasing in recent years due to a 10,000 year trend of increased snow accumulation in East Antarctica. The study stated that ice losses in West Antarctica have been outweighed by East Antarctica's ice increases, but that this trend may reverse itself in only a few decades. From the study's press release:

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...ntist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612
Click to expand...

Seriously dk! 10,000 years ago and Rob is quibling over a 2012 video from NASA which I didn't distort, comment on or otherwise misrepresent. I put up the exact video presented by NASA plus another link to NASA talking about the 2012 anomoly. If there was fault with this video or site, no doubt NASA would have removed it. The fact it is still there is testament it is still relevant and acceptable to scientific study.

10,000 years ago! Which ice-age was that? The 1600 AD saw the 'little ice age', 700 AD saw the dark ages cooling.
10,000 is a bloody long time ago, no chance of margin of error of course! (sarcasm)

The Earth has been ice-free (even at the poles) for most of its history. However, these iceless periods have been interrupted by several major glaciations (called Glacial Epochs) and we are in one now in the 21st Century. Each glacial epoch consists of many advances and retreats of ice fields. These ice fields tend to wax and wane in about 100,000, 41,000 and 21,000 year cycles. Each advance of ice has been referred to as an "Ice Age" but it is important to realize that these multiple events are just variations of the same glacial epoch. The retreat of ice during a glacial epoch is called an Inter-Glacial Period and this is our present climate system.

The existing Plio-Pleistocene Glacial Epoch began about 3.2 million years ago and is probably linked to the tectonic construction of the Isthmus of Panama which prevented the circulation of Atlantic and Pacific waters and eventually triggered a slow sequence of events that finally led to cooling of the atmosphere and the formation of new ice fields by about 2.5 million years ago.


Thus far, the Earth has had around 15 to 20 individual major advances and subsequent retreats of the ice field in our current Glacial Epoch. The last major advance of glacial ice peaked about 18,000 years ago and since that time the ice has generally been retreating although with some short-term interruptions (See Graph above).
 
Yes

I did like that video .... depressing and well since the whole region is permafrost methane, I find it depressing to even think about it. Sadly, its a question of how fast it thaws, the permafrost. NOT if, but when. If it as I suspect takes less than 15 years to be ice free, that in itself, ICE is white, the sea is NOT the whole process according to the ice god from Cambridge, its going to warm the ocean up there by a massive amount.

But nope, Gina's pet paid idiot, and the guy is an idiot in scientific terms, argues that there is MORE ARCTIC ice not less.

This guy makes even the dumbest of them, deniers, look smart.

Whilst one heatwave does not make global warming, its irrelevant, this month is a doosey here in Oz with ave max up 7=8 degrees this month and min up 5 .... and records, well broken 3 days post 1970 very accurate ones all in the sapce of a week and maybe again tomorrow.

Stay cool

Mark K
 
Ann said:
Seriously dk! 10,000 years ago and Rob is quibling over a 2012 video from NASA which I didn't distort, comment on or otherwise misrepresent. I put up the exact video presented by NASA plus another link to NASA talking about the 2012 anomoly. If there was fault with this video or site, no doubt NASA would have removed it. The fact it is still there is testament it is still relevant and acceptable to scientific study.

10,000 years ago! Which ice-age was that? The 1600 AD saw the 'little ice age', 700 AD saw the dark ages cooling.
10,000 is a bloody long time ago, no chance of margin of error of course! (sarcasm)

The Earth has been ice-free (even at the poles) for most of its history. However, these iceless periods have been interrupted by several major glaciations (called Glacial Epochs) and we are in one now in the 21st Century. Each glacial epoch consists of many advances and retreats of ice fields. These ice fields tend to wax and wane in about 100,000, 41,000 and 21,000 year cycles. Each advance of ice has been referred to as an "Ice Age" but it is important to realize that these multiple events are just variations of the same glacial epoch. The retreat of ice during a glacial epoch is called an Inter-Glacial Period and this is our present climate system.

The existing Plio-Pleistocene Glacial Epoch began about 3.2 million years ago and is probably linked to the tectonic construction of the Isthmus of Panama which prevented the circulation of Atlantic and Pacific waters and eventually triggered a slow sequence of events that finally led to cooling of the atmosphere and the formation of new ice fields by about 2.5 million years ago.


Thus far, the Earth has had around 15 to 20 individual major advances and subsequent retreats of the ice field in our current Glacial Epoch. The last major advance of glacial ice peaked about 18,000 years ago and since that time the ice has generally been retreating although with some short-term interruptions (See Graph above).
Click to expand...
Ann, you posted an article which was 6 years old, and was plain and simple wrong.
I linked to the same issue which was only published this week, and was based on data for the 40 years to 2017.
I did not quibble about the video, although again it only went to 2012, and only showed ice cover and not ice mass - they are very different things.
You linked to a very poor chart of the holocene temperature record, so here's a much better one showing various reconstructions, to give you an idea about the variability of the record depending on which study you choose. Moreover, while your linked study said "The Earth has been ice-free (even at the poles) for most of its history," the reality is that for the entirety of your linked chart the opposite was true.
 
rederob said:
data for the 40 years to 2017.
Click to expand...

You bitch about my data being old and yours just keeps getting older and older by thousands of years!

rederob said:
You linked to a very poor chart of the holocene temperature record, so here's a much better one showing various reconstructions, to give you an idea about the variability of the record depending on which study you choose.
Click to expand...
Now you are giving me charts showing thousands of years in the past, geezwept! (Never accuse me of anything I put up as being old science, ever ever, ever again Rob, I will link back and slaughter you).
The old chart shows recorded actualities as recorded in ice and tree rings, rocks, soil layers whatever, geological Ian Plimer type stuff. The inset shows computer modeled maybe-might-happen-charts-as-long-as-no-one-checks-my-computer-modeled-parameters (proxies). As a chartist who has looked at charts for everything under the sun, including sun(spots) for over twenty years, no way is that proxy insert a chart pattern of any truth.
The bullsh!t computer modeled charts are another way I know the CCers are fakers clutching at straws. (As a very, very experienced chartist, I know it is all bullsh!t folks).

holocene.png
 
Ann said:
You bitch about my data being old and yours just keeps getting older and older by thousands of years!
Click to expand...
I showed your claims were false by using information that was peer reviewed mid 2018 and published earlier this week. There is nothing more recent.
Ann said:
As a chartist who has looked at charts for everything under the sun, including sun(spots) for over twenty years, no way is that proxy insert a chart pattern of any truth.
The bullsh!t computer modeled charts are another way I know the CCers are fakers clutching at straws. (As a very, very experienced chartist, I know it is all bullsh!t folks).
Click to expand...
Sadly you do not understand climate science, and your posts keep showing it.
The chart you inserted uses "proxy" data derived by the scientific method because nobody was around in the earlier holcene with thermometers. Different teams of scientists got slightly different results depending on their methodology. Your claims were fanciful and completely wrong.
But the real point I made was that your quote about ice free poles has no relevance to present climate in that humans have never experienced that phenomenon.
 
Well that is all a bit sad Ann..:( I thought that you were actually examining a broader range of scientific information around CC and being appropriately critical of the information.

But then..

1) You start quoting older material from denier websites which selectively quote Antarctic research and then distort the main messages from the research. Rederob points that out to no avail.

2) You fail to recognise that in terms of understanding what is currently happening in the Antarctic the latest research is most definitely the most important. That is because in the space of less than a decade the rate of ice melt in the Antarctic has risen steeply. On top of that the research itself brought new tools to bear which provided far more detailed analysis than was previously possible.

3) Finally you fail to recognize the value of using information from the past (old data) to realise we have a very serious problem in the present. The graph of temperatures over the past 12,000 years is significant because it highlights just how dangerous the current temperature anomaly is. It is way over anything that has been happening for 12,000 years. And by the way the spike at the end represents the data from the last 100 years where we have the most accurate information. We are cooking Ann. And as a consequence warmer water is undermining the ice shelves in the North and South Pole at an unprecedented rate.

If you want to see further analysis of CC check out this website.
http://ossfoundation.us/
 
Can someone pls post a reputable link to a good analysis of all the facts concerning CO2. Kahuna1's video did it well, but its a 20 minute vid, text is more likely to be read.

A lot of these "deniers" listen to "cash for comment Alan Jones and co" who preach that CO2 is not a problem and CC is a hoax.
 
Ok, piece by piece I guess:

"CO2 is Not a Pollutant
That depends on whether it is generated from the natural system or from industrial waste. The dictionary is a good source for understanding words... Let's take a look at what Webster has to say.
image_mini.jpg

Industrial CO2 is a pollutant.

This is one of the most easily misunderstood concepts regarding CO2. Mainly because it is somewhat counter-intuitive if one does not understand the science behind the statement.

Once one understands the context, the relevance appears and it is actually quite simple. First one needs to understand the actual definition of the word pollutant. Second, one needs to know the difference between naturally respirated CO2 in the seasonal carbon cycle and how to identify CO2 from human, or industrial sources.

The simple answer is that any carbon dioxide that has been breathing in and out of the natural carbon cycle is exposed to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR's) that cause a change in the isotopic signature of the CO2molecule. The key isotope is C-14.

Carbon dioxide that has the C-14 signature has been exposed to GCR's. If the C-14 signature is missing, the that CO2 has not been exposed to GCR's and therefore originated from an area protected from solar rays (underground). The amount of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the amount of CO2 expected from burning the amount of fossil fuel we have burned are approximately the same (check this link for more detail).

The conclusion is that the quantitative analysis and the C-14 signature provides solid evidence for the human fingerprint on the increase atmospheric carbon dioxide, therefore:"

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/co2-is-not-a-pollutant
 
Stratosphere Cooling, Troposphere Warming
Suke Manabe and other scientists, when modeling the climate in the 1960's at the Princeton Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, showed that increased CO2 would cause the lower atmosphere to warm and the upper atmosphere to cool (or warm less). This hypothesis has been observed in the data, which further supports the general accuracy of the models. Virtually all climate models show that this is what should happen, and the observed data shows that this is occuring.

Isoptope Evidence
When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen-14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-10) through a nuclear reaction:

14N + p → 14C + n

This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.

Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans."

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused
 

Similar threads

basilio
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
301K
basilio
basilio
Top