On the one hand Greenland is doomed in the first sentence, then the second begins with If. Now that's reassuring doublespeak. Add the modeling study and what you've got is junk science. It must be true if 'Nature' published it, correct?
It actually says that the Greenland ice is
all but doomed to melt, validating the later 'if'. /nitpick
Over 200 well documented research papers, and you guys are still putting bandaids on the hockey stick.
'Putting bandaids on'? What an exceptionally weird way of describing our support of a model supported by loads of evidence. Look, the
original hockey stick was a hoax. New studies, however, proved the hoax to be miraculously accurate.
Source.
So much for "it's warming faster than it ever has".
I don't recall saying otherwise. What people say is that the ice is
melting faster than it ever has. Big difference there.
How many times must it be shown that Greenland warming is neither catastrophic nor "unprecedented"?
I don't recall calling it catastrophic, as a matter of fact I've just spent some posts trying to clear up just that misconception: Al Gore made it sound as if the Greenland melting was an immediate danger, omitting that the soonest it could cause a 20ft rise in sea levels was a thousand years into the future.
As for all this unprecedented warming we've had the last 30+ years, it's hard to find.
Not quite. For starters, there's a very helpful chart in your own post, slightly below the above quoted statement, that shows the warming trend as of late quite clearly.
Now back to "unprecedented" warming. For the heck of it, I looked up U.S. temperature records.
You realize what
global warming means, right? That the global temperature is, and is going to increase
on average, not necessarily that US temperature will. If you have four numeric variables, 3, 3, 3 and 3 (12 in total, 3 on average), and they change to 2, 3, 4, 5 (14 in total, 3.5 on average), the total number and average have both increased, even though not all variables have.
Now we need to worry about what, exactly?
I hope, for your dignity's sake, that you're not trying to make it sound as if a 20ft sea level rise as of 3007 is what we're worried about. I, for one, am concerned with far more... present-day consequences of AGW.
I will rely on old Mr. Sun.
Which one
?
We are currently coming out of solar cycle 23, overdue for SC24.
Waitaminute... how do you know that the Sun will go into another solar cycle and how that cycle will play out? Didn't you say you distrusted climate models? How can it be possible to predict weather trends on the Sun but not on Earth?
Some info on the Sun
here, by the way. He's been exonerated a long time ago.
.
.
.)
.
