Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
Skashion said:
no, the lot:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Climate Change is here and man made
- Thread starter SWP's back
- Start date
no, the lot:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Thanking you.Gelsons Dad said:
Skashion said:Which ones showed evidence of logarithmic warming? and more to the point, logarithmic ice loss, rather than simply ice loss? Please state a position on whether you think there is ice loss overall from the Antarctic? and also the East Antarctic? As it seems you acknowledge mass gain in the East Antarctic. That considered, why is the latest NASA research wrong, especially when most of those articles seem to be based on mass loss (the reported estimate being 57 Gt p/a) were based on the failure to take into account land subsidence, hence why the revised NASA figures indicate mass gain, not mass loss. I thought it was me that was supposed to be out of date? I'm now quoting 2012, you're quoting 2005 at me now.
Right yeah, I quoted a study in a big list which included one from 2005 so I'm suddenly out of date?
Who said anything about logarithmic ice loss? I said warming caused by climate change is a logarithmic effect. You are literally making up things for me to argue now. At this point, you're not acting in good faith. To be honest, you haven't been doing since you waded in and stated that scientific consensus of "we know" is somehow wrong because SOME LoSUs of SOME forcings are low. Every time I say something that's explanational to what I'm saying, like I did with sea ice before, you ignore it. Even if it shows you that you are wrong and have a narrow minded view on things like I did with polynias. You call me an extremist because I work from scientific consensus that climate change is a well known and understood problem and when I point to this consensus you argue semantics.
You tell me exactly how your idea of "we don't know" is relevant when the consensus says that we do know. You have failed to explain this also. Every major scientific institute in the world takes a positive or non-committal stance on this. Nearly all of those take a positive stance. You have yet to explain to me why these are incorrect. More to the point, you've taken tiny, tiny pieces of an overall picture and tried to make a workable framework out of it which is just wrong in climatology. Climate isn't uniform or localised. I would have thought that this is the first thing that you would have learnt about the subject.
In answer to your questions:
Please state a position on whether you think there is ice loss overall from the Antarctic? and also the East Antarctic?
Yes, there is overall ice loss in Antarctica. Considering you want 2012 estimates and used NASA, here's one from about three weeks ago from the same source:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace ... 21129.html</a>
Here's the ice mass from various models up to 2012
[bigimg]http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/709631main_earth20121129b-946.jpg[/bigimg]
Here's the relevant quote
This rate of ice sheet losses falls within the range reported in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The spread of estimates in the 2007 IPCC report was so broad, however, it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice. Combined, melting of these ice sheets contributed 0.44 inches (11.1 millimeters) to global sea levels since 1992. This accounts for one-fifth of all sea level rise over the 20-year survey period. The remainder is caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, melting of mountain glaciers and small Arctic ice caps, and groundwater mining.
As I say, I don't think you are posting in good faith, you are arguing against the huge scientific consensus and you have shown to have a lacking understanding in several places. Consider this my last interaction with you in this thread.
Also, from that AR5 link:
There is high confidence that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently losing mass. The average ice loss from Antarctica was 65 [32 to 98] Gt yr over the period 1993–2010, and 112 [54 to 170] Gt yr over the period 2005–2010. The largest ice losses from Antarctica have occurred on the northern Antarctic Peninsula and from the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica. In the last two decades, East Antarctica is likely to have experienced a small gain in mass.
I wouldn't put much stock in this as it hasn't gone through the full peer review process but whatever
Challenger1978
Well-Known Member
blueish swede said:Corky, I think you are missing the point somewhat.
Global warming is happening at a faster rate than has ever been previously observed (looking at geological record etc). This increase in the warming rate is due to human activity. CO2 is a green house gas, it absorbs the suns energy reflected from the earths surface and holds it in the atmosphere causing an increase in temperature.
We are in the middle of an extinction event right now. It may not be obvious to us in our daily lives but it is predicted that by the end of this century half of all species will have become extinct. The direct effect on people isn't important, or the effect on pandas, elephants, tigers or polar bears. It is the effect on trees and insects that is the biggest threat. If they cannot adapt fast enough as the climate changes then we are all totally screwed.
A heck of a lot of plants/trees originally evolved in a warmer and more co2 enriched environment. In fact you give those plants/trees more co2 and they will grow much faster and thats a fact. That's why professional weed growers use co2 canister for indoor growing to increase the amount of co2 in the air. As it hugely increases the amount of weed you get at harvest time from 30% up to 60%.
corky1970 said:Skashion said:Thanking you.Gelsons Dad said:
fookin BOOM
END THREAD
This is another one of those times when you look like a complete idiot because you didn't read the science.
andyhinch
Well-Known Member
So we're all fucked, not read it.Damocles said:corky1970 said:
This is another one of those times when you look like a complete idiot because you didn't read the science.
That doesn't seem to be a requiring
johnny on the spot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2006
- Messages
- 24,748
*PUTS HAND UP*
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Can't exactly call me out of date when I'm quoting the last IPCC and you're quoting some much smaller studies from 2005 and 2006, along with plenty from 2008 and 2009.Damocles said:Right yeah, I quoted a study in a big list which included one from 2005 so I'm suddenly out of date?
Who said anything about logarithmic ice loss? I said warming caused by climate change is a logarithmic effect. You are literally making up things for me to argue now. At this point, you're not acting in good faith. To be honest, you haven't been doing since you waded in and stated that scientific consensus of "we know" is somehow wrong because SOME LoSUs of SOME forcings are low. Every time I say something that's explanational to what I'm saying, like I did with sea ice before, you ignore it. Even if it shows you that you are wrong and have a narrow minded view on things like I did with polynias. You call me an extremist because I work from scientific consensus that climate change is a well known and understood problem and when I point to this consensus you argue semantics.
You tell me exactly how your idea of "we don't know" is relevant when the consensus says that we do know. You have failed to explain this also. Every major scientific institute in the world takes a positive or non-committal stance on this. Nearly all of those take a positive stance. You have yet to explain to me why these are incorrect. More to the point, you've taken tiny, tiny pieces of an overall picture and tried to make a workable framework out of it which is just wrong in climatology. Climate isn't uniform or localised. I would have thought that this is the first thing that you would have learnt about the subject.
In answer to your questions:
Please state a position on whether you think there is ice loss overall from the Antarctic? and also the East Antarctic?
Yes, there is overall ice loss in Antarctica. Considering you want 2012 estimates and used NASA, here's one from about three weeks ago from the same source:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace ... 21129.html</a>
Here's the ice mass from various models up to 2012
[bigimg]http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/709631main_earth20121129b-946.jpg[/bigimg]
Here's the relevant quote
This rate of ice sheet losses falls within the range reported in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The spread of estimates in the 2007 IPCC report was so broad, however, it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice. Combined, melting of these ice sheets contributed 0.44 inches (11.1 millimeters) to global sea levels since 1992. This accounts for one-fifth of all sea level rise over the 20-year survey period. The remainder is caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, melting of mountain glaciers and small Arctic ice caps, and groundwater mining.
As I say, I don't think you are posting in good faith, you are arguing against the huge scientific consensus and you have shown to have a lacking understanding in several places. Consider this my last interaction with you in this thread.
Also, from that AR5 link:
There is high confidence that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently losing mass. The average ice loss from Antarctica was 65 [32 to 98] Gt yr over the period 1993–2010, and 112 [54 to 170] Gt yr over the period 2005–2010. The largest ice losses from Antarctica have occurred on the northern Antarctic Peninsula and from the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica. In the last two decades, East Antarctica is likely to have experienced a small gain in mass.
I wouldn't put much stock in this as it hasn't gone through the full peer review process but whatever
You haven't shown logarithmic warming in the region at all. Which one of your links shows logarithmic warming in the region?
Show me the scientific consensus on 60m of sea level rise. What a nonsense. No-one supports you on that. No-one is predicting significant East Antarctic ice sheet loss at all.
Already have explained how we don't know is relevant. How can we respond without knowledge? We can't engage in effective geoengineering without having a full picture of how we can effect the climate. We know how to warm it. We don't know how to bloody cool it at this point. It's kind of important to know negative anthropogenic forcings in order to know that.
I haven't taken tiny pieces at all. On the contrary the East Antarctic is THE big piece. It's approximately 60m of a possible 70m of sea level rise.
I think it's you who's refused to engage in good faith. You have previously said:
if Antarctica goes (a continent that's twice the size of Australia and averages 7,000 feet thickness of ice) then we're all fucked and sea levels rise by 200 feet. That means Manchester would be 70 feet under water. Sea level rises are about the size of 111 Piccadilly or No 1 Deansgate, globally.
This however, would take several thousand years (a calculation you haven't bothered to engage with - good faith, bad faith faith or otherwise). However, I'd be enormously interested in how you arrived at the conclusion we're all fucked in several thousand years time. Have we not managed to advance significantly in three thousand years then? Or can you demonstrate that sea levels will rise considerably faster? Indeed, and most importantly, show me a scientific consensus supporting that extent of sea level rises over the next few thousand years.<br /><br />-- Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:11 pm --<br /><br />
Looks like you haven't read it either.Damocles said:Yeah, look at all that solar forcing. It's game changing it is!
[bigimg]http://i.imgur.com/snEgp.png[/bigimg]
BulgarianPride
Well-Known Member
Skashion said:I assumed an average constant average of 30 times the current rate of Greenland for an ice sheet that's not currently melting at all. This is not an estimate. It is not an extrapolation. It is not saying if this or that temperature stays the same. It is simply saying if on average it melted 30 times faster than Greenland, it would still take 3,000 years to melt entirely. Now what is your point?BulgarianPride said:You assumed a constant rate of melting. What is the rate of temperature change? Can it predicted over the next 10-20, 100 or 200 years?
Essentially do we really know the driving factors of the earth's climate change. By driving factors i mean factors that influence the steady state response of the system.
Point is, averages are not a good mean of getting a future look of a dynamic system. At current rate i agree with you 3000 years, but the rate is not constant. Do we know that it is not exponentially growing?