Warmers defense Freezing Up

[woodchip]

One of the main indicators of the warmers argument is the artic ice is decreasing and the resultant melt is increasing sea levels. Well data from the Cryosat spacecraft is now showing a different condition:

"The bounce back in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic this summer was reflected also in the volume of ice.
Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season.
This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012."



Yes I know this is one year but with all those gabillion tons of pollutants we keep putting into the atmosphere each year we should not be seeing a increase of this magnitude. I guess slick you better hold off on making plans to develop a marina on your anticipated future waterfront properties.

[Z..]

We got it dude, you don't believe in man-made climate change. Thanks for reminding us for the millionth time.

[vision]

ITT: woodchip show his ignorance of how climate change works. Again.

[Spidey]

Yea....and the rest of you are freakin experts.

[Krom]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarc ... ng-ice.htm

[Will Robinson]

So we should follow the administrations logic on jobs. Unemployment is down thanks to a few jobs being added, but more importantly because so many more people have given up and quit looking for work they are no longer counted as being unemployed...thus 'good news'!

So if everyone would please go to the shore, bring lots and lots of empty gallon containers, fill them with sea water and take them inland and keep the water bottled up....it will give up trying to add itself to the sea levels and Obama will have, in effect, fulfilled his promise to lower the sea level.

Damn! This 'new Washington math' is some powerful juju!

[Nightshade]

We got it dude, you don't believe in man-made climate change. Thanks for reminding us for the millionth time.

Notice how it sounds like a religion. It seems you don't have faith Woodchip. Your blaspheming will not go unpunished!

[woodchip]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarc ... ng-ice.htm

My post was about the arctic Krom, not the antarctic.

[woodchip]

We got it dude, you don't believe in man-made climate change. Thanks for reminding us for the millionth time.

Notice how it sounds like a religion. It seems you don't have faith Woodchip. Your blaspheming will not go unpunished!

I'm a damn heretic. Oh wait, vision will now try to make me quit the board.

[woodchip]

ITT: woodchip show his ignorance of how climate change works. Again.

well lets see, the disappearing artic ice was the sermon on high of the effects of global warming. Now we have a 10 year period of time where the increase in warming has slowed to nothing and the arctic ice is now increasing in volume and I'm the one that is ignorant.

[vision]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarc ... ng-ice.htm

My post was about the arctic Krom, not the antarctic.

Had you looked at the article you would realize it was relevant to The Arctic as well. However, you can find a more specific explanation here: Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal? The answer of course is "no," and your BBC article even says so:

...today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years...

I guess you missed that important sentence. Easy mistake when you are only looking to satisfy a personal bias.

Now we have a 10 year period of time where the increase in warming has slowed to nothing and the arctic ice is now increasing in volume and I'm the one that is ignorant.

So, let's take a look at "10 year periods."

[woodchip]

Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?[/url] The answer of course is "no," and your BBC article even says so:

...today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years...

I guess you missed that important sentence. Easy mistake when you are only looking to satisfy a personal bias.

Ummm...did I say anything about returning to normal? Easy to miss if you skim read

Now we have a 10 year period of time where the increase in warming has slowed to nothing and the arctic ice is now increasing in volume and I'm the one that is ignorant.

So, let's take a look at "10 year periods."

Yes, your link is correct that temps have increased overall since 1970 as is my statement about the last 10 years being flat for temp. increases. So why have temps not increased for 10 years when ever more pollutants have been dumped into the atmosphere?

[callmeslick]

once I read the word 'warmers' being used, I know I'm dealing with ignorance and ideological purity as a substitute for fact. This thread is just the latest example.

[woodchip]

once I read the word 'warmers' being used, I know I'm dealing with ignorance and ideological purity as a substitute for fact. This thread is just the latest example.

So instead of replying substantively you reply out of emotion. How very quality. Guess you can't answer the questions I posed.

[callmeslick]

once I read the word 'warmers' being used, I know I'm dealing with ignorance and ideological purity as a substitute for fact. This thread is just the latest example.

So instead of replying substantively you reply out of emotion. How very quality. Guess you can't answer the questions I posed.

no, the obvious replies came back to you whilst I was out for Derby Day, and(as would be expected from blind ideology) you ignored or deflected them. Why should I bother? You seem very comfortable with your ignorance. I merely hope that enough people stay focused on the VERY REAL climate changes going on and work together to address them for the betterment of all.

[callmeslick]

One of the main indicators of the warmers argument is the artic ice is decreasing and the resultant melt is increasing sea levels. Well data from the Cryosat spacecraft is now showing a different condition:

"The bounce back in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic this summer was reflected also in the volume of ice.
Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season.
This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012."as noted, this is a rise from a near-historic low, the overall extended levels are very low, and actually sea ice is but one(not 'one of the main') indicators



Yes I know this is one year but with all those gabillion tons of pollutants we keep putting into the atmosphere each year we should not be seeing a increase of this magnitude. I guess slick you better hold off on making plans to develop a marina on your anticipated future waterfront properties
the Bay is up in level alarmingly this year.....places I've never seen flood have gone under two or three times. Oceanside has seen some major effects, too, but those would be a long post by way of description as the changes seen are more subtle and require a bit of local knowledge.

here, I added comments to your OP, Woody. Feel better now?

[woodchip]

First off slick, try and use a color other than dark blue. Very hard to read. Second you are not answering why the last 10 year period sees no increase and indeed a very slight decrease in temps. even tho pollutants are increasing. You give no thought on why the arctic ice has seen such a dramatic increase in volume (indeed if the ice showed this dramatic a decrease the warmers would be all over it). I am amazed at the lack of curiosity by certain self proclaimed intelligentsia who ceaselessly parrot old information to bolster their argument.

[callmeslick]

First off slick, try and use a color other than dark blue. Very hard to read. Second you are not answering why the last 10 year period sees no increase and indeed a very slight decrease in temps. even tho pollutants are increasing. You give no thought on why the arctic ice has seen such a dramatic increase in volume (indeed if the ice showed this dramatic a decrease the warmers would be all over it). I am amazed at the lack of curiosity by certain self proclaimed intelligentsia who ceaselessly parrot old information to bolster their argument.

this is settled science, at least insofar as the matter of whether change is/has been occurring. The real debate is whether it can be dealt with by humans, or whether nitwits using it as some sort of 'conservative' talking point keep preventing scientific work that would help with that. Nebraska Republicans have forced that state to leave all human influence out of any climate change research(causing virtually all scientists on the panel to quit),despite a host of negative effects that have already affected the Plains States. Virginia GOP pressure has kept Virginia from working on addressing climate change, even though there is very clear data that the current trend puts the state about 25 years from Norfolk going under water. And, on it goes. Like I say, anyone using the word 'warmer' to describe folks who acknowledge climate change as a fact exposes him/herself as a fool. I'll stick by that. It isn't a matter of lack of curiousity, just that there is too little time for the process to continue if we're going to stop and address every roadblock tossed out by the 'conservative' anti-intellectual moron class.

[vision]

Second you are not answering why the last 10 year period sees no increase and indeed a very slight decrease in temps.

I'll answer that as soon as you provide an answer to why the last 100 year period saw a rapid increase in global average temperature that has not stopped.

[woodchip]

First off slick, try and use a color other than dark blue. Very hard to read. Second you are not answering why the last 10 year period sees no increase and indeed a very slight decrease in temps. even tho pollutants are increasing. You give no thought on why the arctic ice has seen such a dramatic increase in volume (indeed if the ice showed this dramatic a decrease the warmers would be all over it). I am amazed at the lack of curiosity by certain self proclaimed intelligentsia who ceaselessly parrot old information to bolster their argument.

this is settled science, at least insofar as the matter of whether change is/has been occurring. The real debate is whether it can be dealt with by humans, or whether nitwits using it as some sort of 'conservative' talking point keep preventing scientific work that would help with that. Nebraska Republicans have forced that state to leave all human influence out of any climate change research(causing virtually all scientists on the panel to quit),despite a host of negative effects that have already affected the Plains States. Virginia GOP pressure has kept Virginia from working on addressing climate change, even though there is very clear data that the current trend puts the state about 25 years from Norfolk going under water. And, on it goes. Like I say, anyone using the word 'warmer' to describe folks who acknowledge climate change as a fact exposes him/herself as a fool. I'll stick by that. It isn't a matter of lack of curiousity, just that there is too little time for the process to continue if we're going to stop and address every roadblock tossed out by the 'conservative' anti-intellectual moron class.

It is not "settled science". The reason you think so is the deliberate blocking of contrary questions and papers being blocked :

"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-debate/

The only "fools" are those who classify using the label "warmers" as fools.

[woodchip]

Second you are not answering why the last 10 year period sees no increase and indeed a very slight decrease in temps.

I'll answer that as soon as you provide an answer to why the last 100 year period saw a rapid increase in global average temperature that has not stopped.

Perhaps if you stopped fixating on the last 100 years and looked at the last 10,00 years you might get a totally different perspective.:

"It now appears that temperatures were generally warmer, but only in the summer in the northern hemisphere. The cause? Changes in the Earth's orbit that operate slowly over thousands and millions of years that change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. (See The Ice Age online slide set and Climate Science 100,000 Years for more on orbital forcing.) Such orbital changes can be calculated, and what they indicate is that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer in the summer and colder in the winter than at present during the mid-Holocene."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html

In short changes in earths orbit may be causing the warming. So until you show me categorically that warming is a man induced event and not something like orbital changes or earths wobble I suggest you stop play acting at being scientifically minded.

[Sergeant Thorne]

First off slick, try and use a color other than dark blue. Very hard to read. Second you are not answering why the last 10 year period sees no increase and indeed a very slight decrease in temps. even tho pollutants are increasing. You give no thought on why the arctic ice has seen such a dramatic increase in volume (indeed if the ice showed this dramatic a decrease the warmers would be all over it). I am amazed at the lack of curiosity by certain self proclaimed intelligentsia who ceaselessly parrot old information to bolster their argument.

this is settled science, at least insofar as the matter of whether change is/has been occurring. The real debate is whether it can be dealt with by humans, or whether nitwits using it as some sort of 'conservative' talking point keep preventing scientific work that would help with that. Nebraska Republicans have forced that state to leave all human influence out of any climate change research(causing virtually all scientists on the panel to quit),despite a host of negative effects that have already affected the Plains States. Virginia GOP pressure has kept Virginia from working on addressing climate change, even though there is very clear data that the current trend puts the state about 25 years from Norfolk going under water. And, on it goes. Like I say, anyone using the word 'warmer' to describe folks who acknowledge climate change as a fact exposes him/herself as a fool. I'll stick by that. It isn't a matter of lack of curiousity, just that there is too little time for the process to continue if we're going to stop and address every roadblock tossed out by the 'conservative' anti-intellectual moron class.

Slick this is not a political arena, trying to create a sense of urgency and blaming conservatives (woodchip) for slowing the issue down with their contrary arguments are entirely misplaced. This is actually the place for argument, discussion, and dissent, and trying to hurry past that kind of negates the whole point of coming here. So convince the chipper, or ignore him, but don't pretend that the world is coming to an end and he's the one in the way of saving it.

Personally my mind is made up, and until someone can come up with a way to "save the planet" which jives with our constitution they can kiss my ass. Meanwhile I'm learning a method of gardening which reduces water use and eliminates chemicals, gathering what water I do use from the rain, looking toward getting into aquaponics, working on using less wood in my multi-day camping fires, planting trees, etc.

[flip]

Woodchip, dangit, that is not what they said. Don't make me have to kill you.

[vision]

In short changes in earths orbit may be causing the warming.

Oh boy, this again... First, the article you linked to doesn't actually support your claim. You should read it carefully. Second, orbital forcing or "Milankovitch cycles" are already calculated and controlled for in climate models. Even after removing warming by orbital forcing there is still warming left over that follows industrialization. (Earth's tilt and eccentricity are currently out of phase with each other, thus eliminating orbital forcing as a catalyst for this degree of rapid warming.)

[Z..]

In short changes in earths orbit may be causing the warming. So until you show me categorically that warming is a man induced event and not something like orbital changes or earths wobble I suggest you stop play acting at being scientifically minded.

No dude, you have to show us that warming isn't man-induced. You are in the extremely small minority that still believes that dumping trillions of tons of toxic chemicals into an atmosphere has no effect whatsoever. I find it weird that a "scientist", or at least someone that goes around claiming to be one on a video game chat forum, would never show one instance of scientific thought in the decade that I've been watching you post. I'm not sure what you did for a living, but I commend you for making it this far in life with an extremely diminished mental capacity. So cheers brah! Keep up the mediocre (but amazing for you) work!

[Will Robinson]

...
No dude, you have to show us that warming isn't man-induced. ...

That is a false narrative. Warming is largely NOT man induced. Anthropogenic contribution to warming is a token of the whole. It is debatable as to whether or not an elimination of mans portion of the contribution to rising temps would change the trend.
It might, at best, simply slow down the inevitable arrival of the earth at the same temps by a decade or two.

So, with that in mind it pays to examine the policy that has been attempted to be introduced as a "solution" when a solution might not be possible.
The old saying...trying to hold back the rising tide with a broom comes to mind...only in this case it seems some people are demanding we supply them with lots of broom money!

[Tunnelcat]

Maybe woody and Will will understand once we've blown past the "carbon tipping point". After that, there's no return.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... kling-case

[Will Robinson]

Maybe woody and Will will understand once we've blown past the "carbon tipping point". After that, there's no return.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... kling-case

Show me the viable plan to keep us from the 'tipping point' that has been put forth.
I don't doubt there is a danger but all I see are opportunists and pimps trying to wrap their schemes in the flag of science.

[callmeslick]

Will makes a valid point, but here's the rub: the outright naysayers(and Woody clearly is one of those) are holding back finding, testing and putting into place VIABLE solutions. In fact, so long a much needed scientific research gets slowed or halted altogether, we keep from even making much progress. And that, in a nutshell, was the point of the linked article: the more we dither, the more concentrated the science effort has to be to overcome the dithering, and should we pass that tipping point, the effort and cost will be massive.

for all I know, from where I sit, I'm not at all sure we can even avoid the tipping point and beyond. We have to slash petrochemical emmission and plant a heck of a lot of trees really quick, it seems to me.

[vision]

It might, at best, simply slow down the inevitable arrival of the earth at the same temps by a decade or two.

This is actually the reason why we need to take action. We know the planet can be warmer. No one disputes it. The speed of the warming is the problem. Rapid cooling caused by catastrophes leads to mass extinctions and it follows that rapid rises also lead to similar collapses. We already see ecological stress marks everywhere -- on top of problems caused by pollution. Every day we push back Anthropogenic warming is a day we reduce the chance of disaster.

[Will Robinson]

It might, at best, simply slow down the inevitable arrival of the earth at the same temps by a decade or two.

This is actually the reason why we need to take action. We know the planet can be warmer. No one disputes it. The speed of the warming is the problem. Rapid cooling caused by catastrophes leads to mass extinctions and it follows that rapid rises also lead to similar collapses. We already see ecological stress marks everywhere -- on top of problems caused by pollution. Every day we push back Anthropogenic warming is a day we reduce the chance of disaster.

Rapid rise?
During the decade or two I spoke of, that separates not following the current hyped up action (that isn't applied to some of the world biggest offenders because they are exempt) vs accepting their motives are pure, the rate of rise is projected to be between 1 and 2 degrees worst case scenario. (Although currently the short term trend is down so even that doom scenario is not likely)



What is the catastrophe avoided by arriving 20 years down the road and only having .5 to 1 degree temp rise instead because we did follow their plan?

If you want people to buy in you better remove the political opportunists from the process.

[vision]

If you want people to buy in you better remove the political opportunists from the process.

I'm sorry, but is your mind so distorted you can't see you, yourself, are buying into the message of political opportunists? Seriously. The oil companies have the most to lose from climate policy but they also have the most money. They have bought out countless politicians and funded countless campaigns to cause confusion about something that is now settled science. What nefarious entity is funding all the pro-global warming science? The lucrative solar market? Outside of pocket calculators and an occasional traffic light, where is the solar power for everyday users? Wind-farm lobby? Sure, as soon as I see just as many windmills as gas stations in my neighborhood I'll believe that. Nuclear lobby? When I get a flux-capacitor in my car I'll begin my skepticism of a nuclear powered lawnmower.

The keys under your fingers are made of plastic. Guess where that comes from?

Oil companies control the global economy. We are their slaves. Yet you are completely comfortable with this it seems. Alternative energy markets are small-businesses in comparison. You should be supporting their freedom against the oil monopoly. You like the free market, right?

[sigma]

As far as I know, today, even in the calculation of insurance underwriters in agro-business, based on the help and Long-Term meteorological weather forecasts, is not considered a factor in global warming. When insurance companies will include in insurance programs for insurance services from global warming, then we need to start worrying about this issue.

[Will Robinson]

Vision you just ignored the point by suggesting that, because some selfish people would benefit from inaction I should not question the other selfish people that benefit from following their ill advised course of action.

There is a difference between solving the problem and capitalizing on it. You don't want me to mention that apparently.

[woodchip]

In short changes in earths orbit may be causing the warming. So until you show me categorically that warming is a man induced event and not something like orbital changes or earths wobble I suggest you stop play acting at being scientifically minded.

No dude, you have to show us that warming isn't man-induced. You are in the extremely small minority that still believes that dumping trillions of tons of toxic chemicals into an atmosphere has no effect whatsoever. I find it weird that a "scientist", or at least someone that goes around claiming to be one on a video game chat forum, would never show one instance of scientific thought in the decade that I've been watching you post. I'm not sure what you did for a living, but I commend you for making it this far in life with an extremely diminished mental capacity. So cheers brah! Keep up the mediocre (but amazing for you) work!

Perhaps Zuruck, if you would at least try to investigate and question what is being rammed down our collective throats instead of throwing out unintelligent dictums, perhaps you could learn something...such as:

Christy ( Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH)) told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf)

Now I suppose you will say Dr Christy is also wasting his cranial capacity because he is going against what the oft used climate models predict. It is people like Dr Christy that keeps me from drinking the gallons of kool aid some of you do.

And to clear up your misconception, I never said I was a scientist...I said my degree was in zoology and at least had some understanding of scientific principles, unlike cubicle dwellers like you,

[woodchip]

As far as I know, today, even in the calculation of insurance underwriters in agro-business, based on the help and Long-Term meteorological weather forecasts, is not considered a factor in global warming. When insurance companies will include in insurance programs for insurance services from global warming, then we need to start worrying about this issue.

I finally can agree with sigma about something. If the insurance companies are not red lining the whole planet there is not much to be worried about

[vision]

There is a difference between solving the problem and capitalizing on it. You don't want me to mention that apparently.

It's good you admit there is a problem. I don't care if someone capitalizes on it, I want the problem solved. It's a pretty goddamn big problem. And with the problem solved, EVERYBODY WINS, you numbskull.

[callmeslick]

As far as I know, today, even in the calculation of insurance underwriters in agro-business, based on the help and Long-Term meteorological weather forecasts, is not considered a factor in global warming. When insurance companies will include in insurance programs for insurance services from global warming, then we need to start worrying about this issue.

I finally can agree with sigma about something. If the insurance companies are not red lining the whole planet there is not much to be worried about

obviously, neither of you own property near the coast. Residential insurance for coastal homes on or near the Atlantic and the Gulf is up by over 400% in the past 6 years, and in some cases cannot be renewed at any cost for flood coverage.

[Will Robinson]

There is a difference between solving the problem and capitalizing on it. You don't want me to mention that apparently.

It's good you admit there is a problem. I don't care if someone capitalizes on it, I want the problem solved. It's a pretty ******* big problem. And with the problem solved, EVERYBODY WINS, you numbskull.

You are thick as a brick.

We are talking about, on the one hand, the path of inaction being of no help and on the other hand the opportunists exploitation of the problem advising actions that are of no real help.

And from those two you think you have spotted a "solution" and that your discovery justifies your dishing up insults. numbskull was it? Indeed.

Yes, there is a possible problem. "Possible" because it could be that the temps are going to swing as they always have and no effort by man will be enough to really avoid hitting some harmful highs during the up cycles. In which case the term 'problem 'can be replaced with 'planet evolving inspite of our desires'.

Yes, it is also possible that man could shut down industry and actually avoid hitting some peaks and that could be a net improvement in average warming. A very slight reduction though.

But what is happening is no one has put forth a viable plan that the science can show to be a definite solution. Key word 'viable' because no one is willing to shut down.

Instead we have transfers of wealth to under developed countries while they continue to pump massive amounts of pollutants into the air.
What the hell do you think will happen when you pour money into a developing country? Development will stop or increase? Use your brain.

And so here we are back to my suggestion that you need to remove the influence of the opportunists from the 'solutions department' because they are in there following the Rahm Emanuel play book: Rule #1 - Never let a catastrophe go to waste.
Al Gore and his peers can't really turn the global thermostat down but they found a way to cash in on the discussion. A discussion they steer from the bully pulpit and you are out there chanting their mantra like brainwashed cultist.

[Will Robinson]

As far as I know, today, even in the calculation of insurance underwriters in agro-business, based on the help and Long-Term meteorological weather forecasts, is not considered a factor in global warming. When insurance companies will include in insurance programs for insurance services from global warming, then we need to start worrying about this issue.

I finally can agree with sigma about something. If the insurance companies are not red lining the whole planet there is not much to be worried about

obviously, neither of you own property near the coast. Residential insurance for coastal homes on or near the Atlantic and the Gulf is up by over 400% in the past 6 years, and in some cases cannot be renewed at any cost for flood coverage.

And that has everything to do with hurricane damage that they never were going to continue underwriting at the old low rates. The federal government informed the underwriters that it wasn't going to supplement them in the wake of big storms so the underwriters either bailed from the coastal markets or increased rates dramatically.

Not because they think the tide is rising up to swallow the property because of ice melting.

Nice try. Not.