Global warming

[Skeptical Greg]

....

Oh. The ones that are retreating began their retreat way before CO2 concentrations went up. Doesn't that disprove your hypothesis?

...........

What's even funnier, AUP didn't seem to notice that several of the glaciers, according to his chart, have been advancing for the last 20 years. ( up to 2000 )

 

[mhaze]

What's even funnier, AUP didn't seem to notice that several of the glaciers, according to his chart, have been advancing for the last 20 years. ( up to 2000 )

The BIG factor that does not can about the fantasies of man's evil CO2, technology, and industry.

 

[a_unique_person]

What's even funnier, AUP didn't seem to notice that several of the glaciers, according to his chart, have been advancing for the last 20 years. ( up to 2000 )

So what?

 

[a_unique_person]

Who said they can't ?
By claiming that the Arctic melting is a ' worst case scenario ', you are implying it's as bad as it can get; that further warming can't do any more damage.

You just made mhaze' point about alarmism.

Thank you ..

The rate at which it is melting is worst case scenario. The actual effects for us are minimal, directly. However, that's a whole lot of albedo feedback that's going to be added to warming the rest of the planet a lot sooner than expected. The ice also helps to regulate the temperature, think of an ice cube in a glass of water on a hot day. It also means the models may be underestimating the rate at which warming is going to happen for the rest of the planet.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134

Now, this is supposed to prove up the "CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years" hypothesis. I said 5-15. Your reference is 2005, mine is 2007. Do you have anything not disproven by recent work?

The 'cluthing at straws' syndrome. The extra CO2 that cannot be absorbed by natural processes is the problem. The charts of the CO2 increase indicate 5-15 years is not actually happening to stop that increase.

Sure, we can look at the 60-90 glaciers that are monitored out of the total of what, 67,000?

Oh. The ones that are retreating began their retreat way before CO2 concentrations went up. Doesn't that disprove your hypothesis?

I have already pointed out, the natural rate increased in recent times.

60-90 glaciers is a reasonable sample. You can see where they are located. They can tell how an election will go with only a few hundred people out of millions.

If you think not, let's make a little chart up with average glacial retreat and CO2 levels on the same page.

Otherwise your evidence presented refutes your hypothesis.

It does nothing of the sort.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What's even funnier, AUP didn't seem to notice that several of the glaciers, according to his chart, have been advancing for the last 20 years. ( up to 2000 )

So what?

Are you serious ?

 

[mhaze]

Permafrost melting and accelerated glacier retreat suggests otherwise. That is 'natural' retreat was at a much slower rate.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18.gif

I have already pointed out, the natural rate increased in recent times.

60-90 glaciers is a reasonable sample. You can see where they are located.

Looks like natural variation with possibly a negative correlation to CO2 levels.

 

[a_unique_person]

Are you serious ?

I'm wondering if you are.

 

[a_unique_person]

Looks like natural variation with possibly a negative correlation to CO2 levels.

That's up to you, then. I think the records are quite clear and easy to understand.

 

[CapelDodger]

Looks like natural variation with possibly a negative correlation to CO2 levels.

Could you elaborate on that observation?

 

[mhaze]

That's up to you, then. I think the records are quite clear and easy to understand.

Helllooo????

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm wondering if you are.

Me too. It's no more than a suspicion yet, but I'm still gathering data.

 

[CapelDodger]

Helllooo????

We all realise that you do not find the records clear or easy to understand. There's no need to shout. The thing is, that's your problem. Not a problem with the records. Which most of us find clear and easy to understand.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are you serious ?

Do you think "several" is serious? Seriously? "Several" lacks impact, it doesn't shout "serious". Why do you think it matters at all?

 

[CapelDodger]

The BIG factor that does not can about the fantasies of man's evil CO2, technology, and industry.

Again with the "evil". Can you not set emotion aside?

I will say it again, and why not : AGW is an Unintended Consequence. Value-judgements do not apply.

 

[bobdroege7]

​

The burden of proof that the world will not end tommorrow is not on the one that says the world will not end tomorrow, but on the one that says it will. I can and have made a pretty strong case for it. But the burden of proof remains with you to convince others of it or not.

There is a 60-80 year sea ice cycle and you completely deny it.
​

First, if you had been actually listening and reading the references you would know that the 60-80 year cycle is not referenced to Singer but several other scientists. Second, I would be happy to conclude that it was not a 60-80 year nature cycle when a substantial part of that cycle had not gone according to the dynamics of that cycle as laid out in the scientific literature. That could be determined either as a statistical anomaly or just via common sense approach. So I am ready to change my opinions thus as the facts change.

Can you point me in the direction of the evidence for a 60-80 year sea ice cycle?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you think "several" is serious? Seriously? "Several" lacks impact, it doesn't shout "serious". Why do you think it matters at all?

I see the observation was lost on both of you..

Why, if the planet is getting warmer, would some of the glaciers show a rather dramatic advance?

I'm really trying to understand how warmer = more ice ...

 

[a_unique_person]

I see the observation was lost on both of you..

Why, if the planet is getting warmer, would some of the glaciers show a rather dramatic advance?

I'm really trying to understand how warmer = more ice ...

The prediction was never that all areas of the planet would increase in temperature in lock step. Look at the overall pattern.

 

[bobdroege7]

Looks like natural variation with possibly a negative correlation to CO2 levels.

Where is the advance that would correlate with the little ice age?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Global warming is the increase of average temperature. Which means that some areas definitely can grow colder. I'll have a more detailed answer later.