Resisting Climate Hysteria

ghotib · 6 November 2015

trainspotter said:
ERMMMMMMMMMMMMM yeah I did actually ??

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

The second article is about Antarctic sea ice; it doesn't say anything about the first one, which is about the Antarctic ice sheets.

Here's the NASA press release on which the National Geographic article is based: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

And here is a direct quote from the lead author on the study's implications for future sea levels:

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.

There's a discussion of how this study's results relate to other recent studies of Antarctic ice sheets here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-is-antarctica-gaining-or-losing-ice

and here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/antarctic-ice-growing-or-shrinking-nasa.html.

As always when reading about very active areas of research, it's interesting to get a glimpse of scientists formulating the questions that might suggest how these different results can be reconciled or corrected.

Tisme · 6 November 2015

noco said:
Yipee....the climate change skeptics are now in the majority.

This isn't a game of football, it's a serious issue that could result in wars, famine, dislocation and ultimately the end of civilisation. Barracking for the end of days is weird to me.

Tisme · 6 November 2015

trainspotter said:
Oh dear ...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

If only the fresh water is freezing and the saltwater isn't, doesn't that suggest the temps have risen?

trainspotter · 6 November 2015

@Ghotib ... I repeat for comedy purposes only.

“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”

Meh

basilio · 6 November 2015

Yep TS we don't know exactly how quickly the increase in temperatures will melt the ice caps and how far that will go.

On the other hand scientists do know that the last time global temperatures had increased by 2 degrees C (and we have already done .8C ) sea levels were 25 meters higher than today. Or if you accept another piece of research the levels were only 9-13 metres higher.

So do we have a problem with even accepting a theoretical 2 Degree increase in global temperatures or do we wait until all the evidence is in and our experiment has run it's course ?

A two degrees Celsius of warming would warm the Earth above Eemian levels, move conditions closer to the Pliocene climate, a time when sea level was in the range of 25 meters higher than today.[25] However, one study argues that sea level during the Pliocene might have only risen by 9 to 13.5 meters, due to more resilient ice sheets.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

NASA (8 December 2011). "Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes". 25

"Ice sheets may be more resilient than thought, say Stanford scientists". Stanford University. 2015. 26

trainspotter · 6 November 2015

basilio said:
Yep TS we don't know exactly how quickly the increase in temperatures will melt the ice caps and how far that will go.

Did you even read the links? Try Google "Antarctica growing not shrinking nasa" and see how ya go

Antarctica is gaining more ice than it is losing and is helping to slow the rise in global sea levels, a NASA study suggests. The findings contradict claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice for the past two decades

So what was the cause of the 2 degree increase in the past basilio? Man made was it?

trainspotter · 6 November 2015

If we did more of this ...

and less of this ...

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Ermmm nope it is more like 52% of scientists agree to disagree and they want more funding to study this "phenomenon"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

and IPCC as well can stop making ridiculous predictions ...

We might actually get somewhere

basilio · 6 November 2015

James Taylor is the mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute. This is the organisation that sees it's life work (as well as the fossil fuel industry that funds it) to lie about any Climate Change research that doesn't take a completely benign view on the matter.

Of course there's precious little research like that because ... well ... it's not true and when anyone has attempted to place such research in scientific journals it has been cut to pieces.

But what really fascinates me TS is how your lying shrills will trumpet a small part of the work of one climate scientist to show "there is nothing to worry about" but declare the work of the remaining glaciologists as alarmist rubbish. Clearly the only science that is acceptable are the very small parts they can agree with .

There was one critical point I made. When the earth was a couple of degrees warmer many years ago the sea levels were much higher. That is just the way it goes.

Whether this year or next year there is more snow on the Antarctic won't change the facts of physics.

And by the way where did you did up that phony graph? If in fact it was supposed to represent what was actually happening with temperatures it would look like this.

Were you aware that 2014 was the hottest year on record world wide ? And that 2015 is going to be a a big step up on That record ?

That would be a bit inconvenient however for the people who construct the graph you used.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-global-temperature-data-are-breaking-records

trainspotter · 7 November 2015

Basilio basilio basilio ... you have not answered my question. What caused the 2 degree increase in temperature during the Pliocene climate ? Remember it was between these dates (5.3 Ma to 2.6 Ma)

NASA is a lying shrill?? Afterall it was their thesis that I quoted. But but but in 2011 they were saying something completely opposite

Which brings me to my conclusion that they really don't have one iota of a clue as to WHY this is happening.

So ergo if it happened to be 2,602,015 years ago that Earth was 2 degrees hotter therefore the same rules must apply? Errmmmmmmmm what about land subsidence taking up volumes of ocean? Remember Fraser Island not that long ago with the sinkhole? DERP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-27/major-sinkhole-swallows-vehicles-on-qld-coast/6807536

Pretty picture for dramatic effect ....

Britney Spears .... "Oops I did it again"

Google this little gem

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.

basilio · 7 November 2015

What caused the 2 degree rise in the Piloclene era ? Well probably part of the rich tapestry of how our climate has been changing for millions of years.

Changes in the earths orbit, massive volcanic eruptions lots of other influences.

But that has little relevance to the particular impact humans are causing with the mass release of greenhouse gases.

And taking a comment from NASA as evidence of a lying shrill ? Sorry mate that is just the careful editing of the deniers who construct misleading maps like the one you posted earlier.

Does NASA know everything about climate science ? Of course not. No one does. Its just that the best available information at the moment says we are conducting a very dangerous experiment in releasing GG gases and changing our climate. Picking out the "not sure " bits doesn't change the big picture.

explod · 7 November 2015

basilio said:
Does NASA know everything about climate science ? Of course not. No one does. Its just that the best available information at the moment says we are conducting a very dangerous experiment in releasing GG gases and changing our climate. Picking out the "not sure " bits doesn't change the big picture.

Well said Bas.

The hysterical are those trying with every fibre to deny that there is any change.

noco · 7 November 2015

basilio said:
James Taylor is the mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute. This is the organisation that sees it's life work (as well as the fossil fuel industry that funds it) to lie about any Climate Change research that doesn't take a completely benign view on the matter.

Of course there's precious little research like that because ... well ... it's not true and when anyone has attempted to place such research in scientific journals it has been cut to pieces.

But what really fascinates me TS is how your lying shrills will trumpet a small part of the work of one climate scientist to show "there is nothing to worry about" but declare the work of the remaining glaciologists as alarmist rubbish. Clearly the only science that is acceptable are the very small parts they can agree with .

There was one critical point I made. When the earth was a couple of degrees warmer many years ago the sea levels were much higher. That is just the way it goes.

Whether this year or next year there is more snow on the Antarctic won't change the facts of physics.

And by the way where did you did up that phony graph? If in fact it was supposed to represent what was actually happening with temperatures it would look like this.

View attachment 64937

Were you aware that 2014 was the hottest year on record world wide ? And that 2015 is going to be a a big step up on That record ?

That would be a bit inconvenient however for the people who construct the graph you used.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-global-temperature-data-are-breaking-records

Gawd basilio....A report from the good old commo paper the Guardian...you don't surely believe that exaggerated data, do you?

It has been proven fictitious...ramped up cods waddle and the UN just love it...The UN thrive on it to build up there case for World Government....Ban-Ki-moon is an out and out Greenie...The whole of the United Nations is so corrupt especially since Ban-K-moon took office some 9 years ago.

The alarmist are now in the minority as more and more people wake up to the lies and the rubbish that is being published.

I just wish the hell these stupid people would give up dishing out this propaganda.

ghotib · 8 November 2015

trainspotter said:
@Ghotib ... I repeat for comedy purposes only.

Trainspotter, I point out that jokes work better if the punchline hits a mark. Ummm... what mark were you aiming at?

ghotib · 8 November 2015

trainspotter said:
If we did more of this ...

View attachment 64928

Yep, for sure. There are plenty of good reasons to move to renewable energy, and a heck of a lot to learn about it.

That's why these days I don't spend much time talking about climate science with people who rely on sources that I've found to be dishonest, distorting, or otherwise unreliable. Better to act on the things we agree need doing.

But it was rainy today, and it's been a while since I looked around the climate contrarian island, so I followed up some of your references. It's too late to write about them now, but I'll try and get some responses posted tomorrow. It's nice to see someone putting in some thought and effort, even if I disagree with the results.

wayneL · 8 November 2015

explod said:
Well said Bas.

The hysterical are those trying with every fibre to deny that there is any change.

That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?

The argument here is:

a/Causation

b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments.

explod · 8 November 2015

wayneL said:
That old putrid and disgraceful strawman argument again? Who is "denying" change?

The argument here is:

a/Causation

b/intellectually honest chronicling, vis a vis the justification (or lack thereof) for retrospective adjustments.

The increased complexity of the arguments are stimulated and if necessary created in order to confuse the rank and file.

The changes are observable and as I have pointed out many times are simple. What you see and feel over a lifetime is reality.

wayneL · 8 November 2015

explod said:
The increased complexity of the arguments are stimulated and if necessary created in order to confuse the rank and file.

The changes are observable and as I have pointed out many times are simple. What you see and feel over a lifetime is reality.

So you are arguing for anecdote over empiricism?

I don't think anyone fails to notice the degradation of the environment. As I've pointed out with nauseatingly frequent refrains, this is *my* major concern.

However you seem incapable of discerning the quite separate arguments of anthropogenic environmental degradation and the leftist political imperative of climate change alarmism, hence your willingness to misrepresent the link between these two.

trainspotter · 8 November 2015

ghotib said:
Trainspotter, I point out that jokes work better if the punchline hits a mark. Ummm... what mark were you aiming at?

The reference that the science is not indisputable nor is it logical to expound one causation to the nett effect

trainspotter · 8 November 2015

ghotib said:
Yep, for sure. There are plenty of good reasons to move to renewable energy, and a heck of a lot to learn about it.

That's why these days I don't spend much time talking about climate science with people who rely on sources that I've found to be dishonest, distorting, or otherwise unreliable. Better to act on the things we agree need doing.

But it was rainy today, and it's been a while since I looked around the climate contrarian island, so I followed up some of your references. It's too late to write about them now, but I'll try and get some responses posted tomorrow. It's nice to see someone putting in some thought and effort, even if I disagree with the results.

Climate science is a sham. It is called weather. Even then they cannot predict the weekend is going to be sunny but by God they can predict what is going to happen in 200 years ... no wait ... they cannot do that either. IPCC has been known to extend the truth of the matter at hand. So has many others of the same ilk. Not to say my brigade is much better but I am more of the WayenL philosophy. Let's do something about what we can control NOW and slow consumerism and pollutants and we will slowly turn the tide.

No point running around saying the ice sheets are going to melt and we are all going to drown because of man made Co2 ... mitigate the possibilities of what "might" occur. Nek Menit it is called "rationalism" but apparently this does not fit into the debate at the moment. Either you are a lying shrill (thanks NASA) or a Lord Monkgton to boot.

Evidence my dear adversary is what I am looking for. So much BS is being released and we as a population are shovelling it down our throats without question. It has been going on for millions of years. I learned it in year 9 Science about tectonic plates and subsidence and also igneous rocks, volcanoes, ice ages, hot periods, Greenland blah blah FERKIN blah ... shall I go on? To pin point this change we are experiencing on ONE thing and ONE thing only is farsical at best. Scientist are being proved wrong on both sides of the fence. MODERATE is the best answer and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

NASA comes out and says Antarctica is growing and not shrinking. Ice is thickening. 2011 they were the harbringers of doom and the world is stuffed. C'mon man get a grip ... bananas are radioactive but but but you have to eat a Kajillion of them to gain one isotope. Look at the press and how they manipulate what they want you to know. Look at the money thrown at IPCC and climatology and what do you reckon they will come out with in their studies??? OOOpppps sorry we were wrong and we don't want the millions in funding any more plus the quangos and the multi million dollar research grants and the ivory towers we work out of.

trainspotter · 8 November 2015

basilio said:
What caused the 2 degree rise in the Piloclene era ? Well probably part of the rich tapestry of how our climate has been changing for millions of years.

Changes in the earths orbit, massive volcanic eruptions lots of other influences.

But that has little relevance to the particular impact humans are causing with the mass release of greenhouse gases.

And taking a comment from NASA as evidence of a lying shrill ? Sorry mate that is just the careful editing of the deniers who construct misleading maps like the one you posted earlier.

Does NASA know everything about climate science ? Of course not. No one does. Its just that the best available information at the moment says we are conducting a very dangerous experiment in releasing GG gases and changing our climate. Picking out the "not sure " bits doesn't change the big picture.

Got some links to prove your thesis? So when it happens that Earth's orbit and the rich tapestry is causing 2 degrees in climate change this is OK but when Co2 is mentioned it must be man? Or does the argument agree with the amount of funding and propaganda that you so vehemently believe in ?

You called NASA a lying shrill ... not me. Your call and it was your fingers hitting the keyboard ... not mine.

Soooooooooo a Mount Pinatubo moment could do what exactly?

The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees at the height of the impact.

IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect.

The ball is over the net and I await your next intrepid display of Chicken Little

Resisting Climate Hysteria

ghotib

THIMKER

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

trainspotter

basilio

trainspotter

trainspotter

basilio

trainspotter

basilio

explod

explod

noco

ghotib

THIMKER

ghotib

THIMKER

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

explod

explod

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

trainspotter

trainspotter

trainspotter

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

THIMKER

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

explod

THIMKER

THIMKER

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

explod

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency