Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
..snipped irrelevant reply....
And the height above sea level of Al Gore's ocean view villa (that you obviously looked up to back up your assertion that it would be flooded by sea level changes :rolleyes:) is, ABC10?

P.S. The possible villa at 1504 E Mountain Drive is about 3,000 meters from the sea on a mountain side at a height of 500 feet above sea level :eek:.
However the idiocy of asserting that his villa would be flooded if you do not even know the address of the villa should be obvious to you. So the question should have been: What is the address of Al Gore's ocean view villa and what is its height above sea level?
 
Last edited:
No, politics is the process of instituting public policy. Consensus is merely an agreement on some specific common understandings. The problem with most politics is that there is no semblance of consensus, nor even the need to develop such.
Hate to say but my position on the global warming topic while changed over the years remains cynical since it's still wildly politicized - and it IS wildly politicized, particularly here in the states. It's not the data that really makes me cynical either anymore, it's the over-hyping and lack of any real change in policies that could allow anything human-related in that mix to be addressed. Figures like Al gore never really helped with that for me either.

Even so, I figure supporting renewable energy if/when it can trump fossil fuels would cancel out my skepticism related to politics anyway ;)
I won't say much else about my thoughts about the data and consensus on this one other than, I'm a little more open than I used to be to taking it at face value where politics isn't as heavily injected. I'd rather personally deal with making any technologies we apply to it more efficient, which is happening, but still only very slowly in terms of practical mainstream use
 
Last edited:
Hate to say but my position on the global warming topic while changed over the years remains cynical since it's still wildly politicized - and it IS wildly politicized, particularly here in the states. It's not the data that really makes me cynical either anymore, it's the over-hyping and lack of any real change in policies that could allow anything human-related in that mix to be addressed. Figures like Al gore never really helped with that for me either.

Even so, I figure supporting renewable energy if/when it can trump fossil fuels would cancel out my skepticism related to politics anyway ;)
I won't say much else about my thoughts about the data and consensus on this one other than, I'm a little more open than I used to be to taking it at face value where politics isn't as heavily injected. I'd rather personally deal with making any technologies we apply to it more efficient, which is happening, but still only very slowly in terms of practical mainstream use

" and it IS wildly politicized, particularly here in the states. "

how is that the case? what is politicized about climatology?
 
Hate to say but my position on the global warming topic while changed over the years remains cynical since it's still wildly politicized - and it IS wildly politicized, particularly here in the states. It's not the data that really makes me cynical either anymore, it's the over-hyping and lack of any real change in policies that could allow anything human-related in that mix to be addressed. Figures like Al gore never really helped with that for me either.

Even so, I figure supporting renewable energy if/when it can trump fossil fuels would cancel out my skepticism related to politics anyway ;)
I won't say much else about my thoughts about the data and consensus on this one other than, I'm a little more open than I used to be to taking it at face value where politics isn't as heavily injected. I'd rather personally deal with making any technologies we apply to it more efficient, which is happening, but still only very slowly in terms of practical mainstream use

You could always just focus on the results of the research.
 
He could also focus on the data

54AB933A-627B-489E-BBE319BE9FEDAC8C.jpg


735DEC0E-749C-4EFF-A3EDDCA469488883.jpg


20121230_Icesheet_mass_balance_2009_fig2.gif


No hyberbole....rapid change in a blink of an eye.

•••••
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27506349

Carbon loss from tropical forests 'underestimated'

The amount of carbon lost from tropical forests is being significantly underestimated, a new study reports.

Experts say that in addition to loss of trees, the degradation of trees by selective logging and fires causes large amounts of "hidden" emissions.

The slow moving process has remained almost invisible to satellite observations.

The study team say that 40% of carbon emissions from deforestation in the Amazon is due to degradation.

The research is due to be published in the journal Global Change Biology.
 
China glaciers shrink 15 percent in warming
17 hours ago

China's glaciers have shrunk by thousands of square kilometres over the past 30 years as a result of climate change, state-run media reported Wednesday.The Qinghai-Tibet plateau in western China has seen its glaciers shrink by 15 percent, or 8,000 square kilometres (3,089 square miles), the official Xinhua news agency cited the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) as saying.
Glacier melt in the region, which includes the Chinese portion of the Himalayas, has accelerated since the 1990s, the report cited researchers as saying, the latest sign of the impact of climate change in the region.
The report cited CAS researcher Kang Shichang as saying that "more and bigger cracks" have appeared in ice on Mount Everest, a sign of "rapidly melting glaciers".
The Qinghai-Tibet plateau covers the area China calls the Tibetan Autonomous Region as well as highland parts of neighbouring provinces.
Kang added that over the long term the glacial melt could substantially reduce the flow into several of Asia's main rivers, which originate on the Tibetan plateau.

more....
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-china-glaciers-percent.html

and the heat goes on.....
 
Big Al is such an easy laughable target.
Irrelevant if he is or not.
I will never forgive him for accepting that Nobel Prize when he knew it was ridiculous propaganda.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is mostly correct.

Irena Sendler, a real heroine who save 2,500 jewish children from certain death should have gotten it, but then that is part of way the "Prize" is of such little value now.

:confused: There are plenty of other years she could have got it. There is still time for her to get it. Do you hate the people who got the Nobel Prize those other years as well. Logically, as a debating point, this is complete non-sequitor.

500 feet from the ocean ain't much. What is that? About 0.3 part of a mile?

Where Al Gore chooses to live has nothing to do with the scientific case for Global Warming. Neither does his weight.
 
500 feet from the ocean ain't much. What is that? About 0.3 part of a mile?
It's not 500 feet from the ocean it's 500 feet above the ocean - elevation, not distance. It would only be at risk of flooding if sea level rose at least 500 feet, which is ten times more than expected in even the worst case scenarios.
 
Hillarious WUWT dishonesty.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/...g-only-7-in-per-century-with-no-acceleration/

New study finds sea levels rising only 7 in. per century – with no acceleration

this newest analysis of the most comprehensive data set available suggests that there has been no dramatic increase – or any increase, for that matter

he links to the paper, because he knows, his minnions will not click the link but just take his word for it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750#f0015

in the Abstract we find :

We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2009).

Highlights


Updated global and regional sea level rise since 1807

Fastest sea level rise in Arctic (3.6 mm·yr− 1) and Antarctica (4.1 mm·yr− 1) since 1970.

Acceleration of 0.02 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2010)
Uncertainties in GSL reconstruction due to GIA corrections are up to 0.3 mm·yr− 1

here the full paper
http://kaares.ulapland.fi/home/hkunta/jmoore/pdfs/Jevrejevaetal2013GPChange.pdf

htey just blatantly lie and missrepresent the science, and then his minnions run over to YouTube and spamm all the AGW Videos with their latest lies....
and you debunk their lies with their own links and they just make up another lie....

frustrating.
 
Last edited:
You could always just focus on the results of the research.
Which you'll find I don't have much issue with anymore. I know the position I have isn't exactly "ideal" but I'm not so invested in the idea of whether climate change is human caused or not to bother arguing about it anymore. The data is what it is... I'm actually fine with addressing the issue regardless since the solutions can have other benefits which I've already supported, I'm just pointing out that the politicization had alot to do with the way I viewed it in the past and still do to an extent to date.
 
Last edited:
Which you'll find I don't have much issue with anymore. I know the position I have isn't exactly "ideal" but I'm not so invested in the idea of whether climate change is human caused or not to bother arguing about it anymore. The data is what it is... I'm actually fine with addressing the issue regardless since the solutions can have other benefits which I've already supported, I'm just pointing out that the politicization had alot to do with the way I viewed it in the past and still do to an extent to date.

what politicization ?
i have read so many papers on this Topic now, and i never came across a paper that gave me the Impression of any political influence whatsoever.
i dont understand what People mean by it.
 
No, a concensus opinion. The IPCC is not a policy-making body, it's advisory. It has no opinion, consensus or otherwise, on policies.
Er, yes. Voting (or at least debating) within IPCC, that is, internal politics. :)

I find the 'no opinion' unjustifiable, beginning with Hansen and continuing to this day. Keep the grant funds flowing.
 
Er, yes. Voting (or at least debating) within IPCC, that is, internal politics. :)
No it isn't. The debate is about confidence levels based on the research involved in each particular case.

I find the 'no opinion' unjustifiable, beginning with Hansen and continuing to this day. Keep the grant funds flowing.
Hansen's personal opinions are nothing to do with the IPCC confidence levels, and since he's retired from research he has no need of grants.
 
Er, yes. Voting (or at least debating) within IPCC, that is, internal politics. :)

I find the 'no opinion' unjustifiable, beginning with Hansen and continuing to this day. Keep the grant funds flowing.

your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.
 
... I'm just pointing out that the politicization had alot to do with the way I viewed it in the past and still do to an extent to date.
Which is fair enough. I approach the world in a different way but I'm not going to argue it's a better one.

The way that AGW denial has become a totem of the right world-wide is an interesting phaenomenon in itself, and will no doubt be the subject of much historical debate in future, but I can (and do) keep it quite separate from the science. That approach works for me; others prefer a more holistic or subjective one, or even something scripture-based. It takes all sorts to make a good poker party.
 
Personal insults diminish the discussion and show a definite lack of ideas to advance the debate. What lists? Where?

Stating a demonstrated fact, is not a personal insult. Lying insults the people to which you tell the lies.
 
Stating a demonstrated fact, is not a personal insult. Lying insults the people to which you tell the lies.

Sorry all, I forgot what ABC's role was here, I will take my own advice and I do encourage others not to feed the trolls.
 
What kinds of things did people actually claim about global warming?

“The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

Because there are hundreds, maybe thousands of claims about winters that were made, none of which came true. Same for all the predictions about temperatures rising globally.

“Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
NASA, June 2, 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

“We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

"The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

“Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

“We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

That now, after 6 years of increasingly colder and usually snowier winters for the NH, we see claims that global warming will make winters colder. There are even people so clueless they want to claim warmer winters will actually mean more snow. And they are serious. The delusion is that deep.

We see this absurd reversal, where instead of talking about the warming of winters, more rain instead of snow, lack of snowfall for ski resorts, the danger of winters too warm for winter wheat to grow, animals moving north because of warming winters, now the exact thing that wasn't predicted, is now being blamed on global warming.

So when the winters were warming, with less snow, we heard all kinds of predictions about it, because of global warming. Warmer winters are a prediction of global warming.

“More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

But now, the reverse is being claimed.

Actually, this cold weather can be linked to global warming

And no, it's not the media making this up.

Millions of people in America and northern Europe are still battling snow and ice, wondering why they are being punished with bitter cold when -- officially -- spring has arrived and Earth is in the grip of global warming.

Yet some scientists, eyeing the fourth year in a row of exceptionally harsh late-winter weather in parts of Europe and North America, suggest warming is precisely the problem.

In a complex tango between ocean and atmosphere, warming is causing icy polar air to be displaced southwards, they contend.

"The linkage is becoming clearer and clearer, I think, although the science has not yet been settled," said Dim Coumou of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) near Berlin.
http://www.wunderground.com/news/global-warming-winters-20130328

That the science is not settled is for certain.
The warming-and-winter scenario is far from unanimous in climatology. Other experts call for more evidence, especially from longer-term data.

"Looking at what's happening right now, in early spring, it's too early to say whether it is due in part to a temporary climatic swing," said David Salas-y-Melia of Meteo France, the French meteorological agency.
Especially since a lot of people are still in denial that winters are getting colder.

I remember in 09 when some people were saying the epic snow and cold meant global warming was a joke. The AGWs said clearly, that one cold winter meant nothing, that you could still have the rare cold winter. But in a global warming world they would be rare. That pointing to weather, a cold winter, meant you didn't understand climate at all.

Now those same people are claiming cold winters are possibly caused by global warming.

And they can't understand why so many people have become skeptical of their claims.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ABC10 View Post
Personal insults diminish the discussion and show a definite lack of ideas to advance the debate.

The "debate" is only in your imagination.....the reality of AGW is being dealt with in the wider community. There is much debate about best method of dealing with the problem.

You don't advance the discussion....the discussion thread is about climate science and you don't have any supported position in climate science nor have you provided any..

You have not answered a single easy easy question posed to you

Does C02 trap IR?
 
What kinds of things did people actually claim about global warming?

“The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

Because there are hundreds, maybe thousands of claims about winters that were made, none of which came true. Same for all the predictions about temperatures rising globally.

“Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
NASA, June 2, 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

“We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

"The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

“Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

“We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

That now, after 6 years of increasingly colder and usually snowier winters for the NH, we see claims that global warming will make winters colder. There are even people so clueless they want to claim warmer winters will actually mean more snow. And they are serious. The delusion is that deep.

We see this absurd reversal, where instead of talking about the warming of winters, more rain instead of snow, lack of snowfall for ski resorts, the danger of winters too warm for winter wheat to grow, animals moving north because of warming winters, now the exact thing that wasn't predicted, is now being blamed on global warming.

So when the winters were warming, with less snow, we heard all kinds of predictions about it, because of global warming. Warmer winters are a prediction of global warming.

“More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

But now, the reverse is being claimed.

Actually, this cold weather can be linked to global warming

And no, it's not the media making this up.

http://www.wunderground.com/news/global-warming-winters-20130328

That the science is not settled is for certain.

Especially since a lot of people are still in denial that winters are getting colder.

I remember in 09 when some people were saying the epic snow and cold meant global warming was a joke. The AGWs said clearly, that one cold winter meant nothing, that you could still have the rare cold winter. But in a global warming world they would be rare. That pointing to weather, a cold winter, meant you didn't understand climate at all.

Now those same people are claiming cold winters are possibly caused by global warming.

And they can't understand why so many people have become skeptical of their claims.

So the short version of this is that cold winters can still happen and that this may be exacerbated by the Arctic ice melt. I'm not quite sure why this would lead anyone to be sceptical of global warming. While a small part of the world might have a harsh winter temperatures globally are still above the 20th century average. April 2014 was the warmest on record. March 2014 was the fourth warmest on record. December–February worldwide land surface temperature was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average, the 10th warmest such period on record. What do you think is increasing global temperatures r-j?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom