Antarctic thaw quickens, trillions of tonnes of ice raise sea levels

[VocalNeal]

The maths part is easy.  Area of Antartica 14m square kms. Area of the oceans roughly 360m square kms. Average depth of ice pack 2.16 kms 

 

Grind it all out it comes to 80m. But then the water will move inland and the area of the oceans will get larger so.... 

 

By then Bangkok will be underwater, the BTS will be broken, capital will be Buriram, Newin's descendant will be PM,  The Rohinga will be living in Nepal, et al..

[owl sees all]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. At the time, some papers in the scientific literature did explore this hypothesis, but a larger number of papers were published on the topic of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The global cooling hypothesis nonetheless gained temporary popularity due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the debate in the scientific literature.

Thanks for that bb. I was thinking something similar but now you have confirmed my suspicions. Good post.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

Indeed, they have.

It's funny, you're the 2nd ACC denier I've encountered here who refuses to cite any specific source to back up his claim and told me to look it up for myself. In both cases, it's such a cowardly reply. Because let's say I did go to one of those sources and managed to debunk it. All you or he would have to do is claim that's not the one you meant. And since there are literally hundreds if not more of these sites, you've set yourself up in a position that can't be definitively refuted. And not on the basis of merit but on the basis of evasion. It's clear you don't have much confidence in the basis of your claims. Otherwise you would have no problem providing the evidence.

[owl sees all]

18 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

The maths part is easy.  Area of Antartica 14m square kms. Area of the oceans roughly 360m square kms. Average depth of ice pack 2.16 kms 

 

Grind it all out it comes to 80m. But then the water will move inland and the area of the oceans will get larger so.... 

 

By then Bangkok will be underwater, the BTS will be broken, capital will be Buriram, Newin's descendant will be PM,  The Rohinga will be living in Nepal, et al.

 

Good post but if I may I'd like to question a couple of points!

 

If all the ice in the ice-pack melted it would cause a lot flooding. My feeling is that the water will travel very slowly seeping into the ground as it goes. The water tables will rise significantly but the flooding might not be so devastating as some scientists are predicting. I fear for many fresh water fishes. They will have to gradually adapt to a slightly salty water; unless they are high enough up to escape the onrush of salty water.

 

It is true BKK will be underwater, but I reckon the new capital could well be Khon Kaen.

 

The big problem, that I have not seen addressed, is the 'big rivers' of the world (including the Mekong). These rivers will not be able to run to the sea as before and will find new routes. I'm sure the Thai authorities are up to speed on this but still worth a mention.

Edited June 18, 2018 by owl sees all

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, gregk0543 said:

Forget attacking each other for a bit and lets see what information is correct or not and why.

Our opinions dont matter in the end  but the data that has been collected over the years and everything I see is pointing to man made climate change as the main reason.

 

Is ice melting, are oceans rising, is Co2 ppm going up, is global temperature rises occuring, and what are the immediate and foreseeable consequences.

 

Yes it is a complex system and yes there are uncertainties in predicting the future but we have used this method time and again to help us make the future better and not worse.  At this point in human civilisation I think we are reaching the limits of our biosphere and our effects are observable and recorded.

 

Plastics waste, fisheries collapse,  etc. these are measurable outcomes of civilisation and industrialisation.

 

Are there any Chinese scientists or Indian ones saying there is no such thing as climate change and no need to change anything?  People in Asia are seeing the effects in rain patterns droughts and floods.

As above some Chinese scientist is working on salt tolerant rice.  This is the sort of direction we need to be going in.

 

How many naysayers have any evidence to refute the graphs Nasa  has online?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

 

etc mentioned above...

 

 

 

 

but we have used this method time and again to help us make the future better and not worse.

Given that there has never been a comparable situation in human history, how can "this method" have been used before?

No sensible person says climate doesn't change, and statistics show that there is a slight warming compared to previous decades, but the argument is whether man caused it, or if it's a natural cycle. The question I ask, is whatever the cause, can it be reversed, and to what? No one has ever answered that question. Other than reporting that a lot of people are saying the world is getting hotter, no one has given me a viable solution, and I'm still waiting to see what governments think is the answer, other than raising taxes. The carbon exists in the atmosphere, but every person on the planet could use renewables tomorrow and it wouldn't remove any of that carbon. Of course, the vast majority of people have no interest in the discussion, and will continue to live as they always have. One of the largest polluters, the airline industry is planning a huge expansion of atmospheric polluting planes, and the car industry puts millions of polluting vehicles on the road every year.

Everyone would be better off if we started replacing cars and planes with decent public transport, and cleaned up the oceans, but nothing is being done about vehicles that makes any difference, and nothing is being done about the oceans that makes a difference.

The CC industry can keep on having conferences, but in reality, IMO, nothing will change re CO2 in the atmosphere.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I am so relieved. Now that I know that you don't care, why should the rest of us worry. Maybe you should adopt this as your motto 

"Global Warming. It's All About Me."

Not only him, but the vast majority of humanity don't care. Try telling a Thai that they shouldn't buy that car and see what response you get. Of course LOS doesn't have any non polluting ( that I know of ) electricity generating capacity, and I'd say that goes for most countries in SEA. More people want to use electricity and drive a car than even think about C C.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but we have used this method time and again to help us make the future better and not worse.

Given that there has never been a comparable situation in human history, how can "this method" have been used before?

No sensible person says climate doesn't change, and statistics show that there is a slight warming compared to previous decades, but the argument is whether man caused it, or if it's a natural cycle. The question I ask, is whatever the cause, can it be reversed, and to what? No one has ever answered that question. Other than reporting that a lot of people are saying the world is getting hotter, no one has given me a viable solution, and I'm still waiting to see what governments think is the answer, other than raising taxes. The carbon exists in the atmosphere, but every person on the planet could use renewables tomorrow and it wouldn't remove any of that carbon. Of course, the vast majority of people have no interest in the discussion, and will continue to live as they always have. One of the largest polluters, the airline industry is planning a huge expansion of atmospheric polluting planes, and the car industry puts millions of polluting vehicles on the road every year.

Everyone would be better off if we started replacing cars and planes with decent public transport, and cleaned up the oceans, but nothing is being done about vehicles that makes any difference, and nothing is being done about the oceans that makes a difference.

The CC industry can keep on having conferences, but in reality, IMO, nothing will change re CO2 in the atmosphere.

Once again, evading the scientific issue.

And actually there was a comparable issue that occurred before the right wing decided it didn't like science. Remember the ozone hole? That was another complex problem. Margaret Thatcher persuaded Ronald Reagan it was a problem and once measures were instituted the hole began to shrink. 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Once again, evading the scientific issue.

And actually there was a comparable issue that occurred before the right wing decided it didn't like science. Remember the ozone hole? That was another complex problem. Margaret Thatcher persuaded Ronald Reagan it was a problem and once measures were instituted the hole began to shrink. 

My question has nothing to do with science per se, so nice diversion but no cigar.

 

Re the ozone hole, there was no debate about the science. They knew what caused it and the solution was obvious. That is not the case with climate change. The causes are open to speculation, and the solution has never been explained.

If you have a practical solution, that would be easy enough to be implemented by everyone on the planet, I'm keen to hear it. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 9:17 PM, kwilco said:

What is so disconcerting is that those who deny man mare climate change seem unaware of their profound ignorance on the matter and their total inability to sort the wheat from the chaff and yet still have the arrogance to think they have the intellect to counter the arguments.

They simply have no idea how wide of the mark they are.

As a practical person, I'm always interested in practical solutions to problems. However, far as I'm aware, no proponent of man made C C has ever suggested an affordable, practical solution, or even said what they want the result of any solution to be ( what would the optimum temperature be worldwide, how much rainfall do they want in SEA vs the USA etc etc etc ). The only thing I can see that is done, is new taxes, and government loves new taxes to waste on their pet projects.

 

Sooooo, I'm waiting to hear all those practical solutions that will be affordable and won't penalise the poorest in society. Only solutions that work though, please.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

"...99% of climate researchers are 99% sure that we are destroying the planet that we live on"

 

Really?  Where did you get that gem from?

I love it when people come out with silly clichés like "we are destroying the planet that we live on". Perhaps they are so arrogant that they think the planet is only about humans. Humans are only a blip in the existence of planet earth so far, and if they don't stop polluting it, our time is not going to last very long. Planet earth, however, will continue on regardless. It is, after all, several billion years or more till the sun enlarges and consumes it. All humans are doing is destroying the environment that sustains us. Give it a few million years and another life form will emerge, and perhaps one that cares more about the environment than we did.

[Jonah Tenner]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You're right. He's massively exaggerating. It's only 97%.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Science by consensus is not science, it is opinion.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

How important is advancing what would normally take thousands of years into a hundred? According to you, not very.

If humans don't stop polluting the oceans, the temperature won't matter. The oceans are already dying and how long will humans survive if the oceans die?

Humans are too greedy, and IMO, the authors of their own demise. Perhaps it won't be long till we join the thousands of species that humans have exterminated.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

How can someone be 99% sure? Surely you are either sure or you are not! I think it means that the probability is 99%.

It's interesting that the old 99% or whatever is bandied about as if it actually is of importance, but it's statistics, and we all know about statistics don't we. They can be manipulated.

Firstly, 99% of what? C C scientists apparently. What % of scientists on the planet are C C scientists? Were every single one of them asked? How many of the 99% depend on "believing" in C C for grant money?

Tell me how many scientists there are in the world and how many of them believe in C C, and give us that statistic if I'm expected to take it seriously. Not going to happen though. No one is going to ask every scientist in the world. They will ask a select few and extrapolate. So, in the end, it all depends on which scientists they ask as to the outcome. Not a very scientific way of determining a statistic.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and statistics show that there is a slight warming compared to previous decades,

'DID' show, resent stats suggest cooling in the last decade.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. At the time, some papers in the scientific literature did explore this hypothesis, but a larger number of papers were published on the topic of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The global cooling hypothesis nonetheless gained temporary popularity due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the debate in the scientific literature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

That is misleading in the extreme, as you doubtless know .

 

In 1974, the CIA issued a 36-page report on global cooling which began as follows:

 

"The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change... . A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth's climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850) [the Little Ice Age - Ed.] - an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world."

 

It goes on to cite examples of the cooling, and its effects around the world, and concludes:

 

"Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure [sic] a secure supply of food resources."

 

Rather more than a "conjecture".

 

The lesson to be learned is that, along with SkS Kidz, another source you shouldn't rely on for accuracy is Wikipedia, especially where contentious issues are concerned.

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's interesting that the old 99% or whatever is bandied about as if it actually is of importance, but it's statistics, and we all know about statistics don't we. They can be manipulated.

Firstly, 99% of what? C C scientists apparently. What % of scientists on the planet are C C scientists? Were every single one of them asked? How many of the 99% depend on "believing" in C C for grant money?

Tell me how many scientists there are in the world and how many of them believe in C C, and give us that statistic if I'm expected to take it seriously. Not going to happen though. No one is going to ask every scientist in the world. They will ask a select few and extrapolate. So, in the end, it all depends on which scientists they ask as to the outcome. Not a very scientific way of determining a statistic.

You mean ask a marine biologist his or her opinion? And maybe while we're at it, ask a climatogilist his or her opinion about some issue in marine biology. This is a completely nonsensical idea.

 

 

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
   
   Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
   
   J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
   
   Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
   
   W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
   
   P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
   
   N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
2. Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)
3. AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)
4. ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)
5. Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)
6. Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)
7. Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)
8. APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)
9. GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)
10. Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)
11. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)
12. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
13. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)
14. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by bristolboy

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, bristolboy said:

You mean ask a marine biologist his or her opinion? And maybe while we're at it, ask a climatogilist his or her opinion about some issue in marine biology. This is a completely nonsensical idea.

 

Sooooo, what's the point of you discussing it on here? None of us are climate scientists. 

I'm still waiting for an answer about practical solutions to C C. I'm not holding my breath waiting, and I could lay bets that no answer will be put forth. I doubt all those C C scientists actually know what to do about it, but it won't stop them having conferences about it, but only where they have to fly to exotic destinations. Video conferencing just doesn't have the same attraction. 

[bristolboy]

 

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, what's the point of you discussing it on here? None of us are climate scientists. 

I'm still waiting for an answer about practical solutions to C C. I'm not holding my breath waiting, and I could lay bets that no answer will be put forth. I doubt all those C C scientists actually know what to do about it, but it won't stop them having conferences about it, but only where they have to fly to exotic destinations. Video conferencing just doesn't have the same attraction. 

If you think it's pointless for discussion on thaivisa.com to take place on complicated issues of the day, then I have yet to see a discussion in the world forum where anything close to a panel of experts has been convened.,

And in fact huge technological progress has already been made. But you typically choose to ignore it.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

That is misleading in the extreme, as you doubtless know .

 

In 1974, the CIA issued a 36-page report on global cooling which began as follows:

 

"The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change... . A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth's climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850) [the Little Ice Age - Ed.] - an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world."

 

It goes on to cite examples of the cooling, and its effects around the world, and concludes:

 

"Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure [sic] a secure supply of food resources."

 

Rather more than a "conjecture".

 

The lesson to be learned is that, along with SkS Kidz, another source you shouldn't rely on for accuracy is Wikipedia, especially where contentious issues are concerned.

 

 

 

Wow! The prestigious scientific research agency know as the CIA.

 

In fact, there is a real deeply reserached paper on the issue that offers data and everything? You've heard of data" And it was done by people with names, not anonymously authored papers from a government intelligent agency. Let me direct you to the page:

.THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

" An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

 

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

If you think it's pointless for discussion on thaivisa.com to take place on complicated issues of the day, then I have yet to see a discussion in the world forum where anything close to a panel of experts has been convened.,

And in fact huge technological progress has already been made. But you typically choose to ignore it.

No, I think it's a good place for a discussion, but you apparently think our opinion is of no value because we are not climate scientists. That's what you implied anyway.

 

Saying "huge technological progress has already been made" is meaningless if you are not prepared to give an example. I doubt you can provide evidence of solutions that are affordable, practical and don't penalise the poorest.

I'm not ignoring anything, but I haven't read anything that would lead me to believe there is anything out there that would actually make a difference. Don't forget, it has to be applicable to the peasants in China as much as to the rich people in California.

[RickBradford]

Quote

In fact, there is a real deeply reserached paper on the issue

How interesting that one of the authors of that paper is one William Connolley, a climate propagandist of such egregious bias and bad faith that he was actually banned from editing Wikipedia pages related to climate science.

 

Your sources keep turning out to be charlatans and kooks, which is perhaps to be expected, but the fact remains that if the CIA was tasked with producing a report on global cooling, citing the best climatologists of the time, the subject was being treated as considerably more than a "conjecture".

 

One further note: you complain about "anonymously authored papers"; intelligence agencies don't usually attach bylines to their work, as it rather defeats the purpose. The work of several scientists, is, however, quoted.

Edited June 18, 2018 by RickBradford

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

How interesting that one of the authors of that paper is one William Connolley, a climate propagandist of such egregious bias and bad faith that he was actually banned from editing Wikipedia pages related to climate science.

 

Your sources keep turning out to be charlatans and kooks, which is perhaps to be expected, but the fact remains that if the CIA was tasked with producing a report on global cooling, citing the best climatologists of the time, the subject was being treated as considerably more than a "conjecture".

 

One further note: you complain about "anonymously authored papers"; intelligence agencies don't usually attach bylines to their work, as it rather defeats the purpose. The work of several scientists, is, however, quoted.

Typically you misrepresent the controversy over Connelly. Nobody who's not a dyed in the wool ACC denier doubts his scientific credentials.

Connolley began editing Wikipedia in 2003^[16] and served as a Wikipedia administrator from 2006 until 2009.^[17] He has been cited and quoted in the media regarding these activities, especially with respect to his editing in the area of climate change. He was cited by Nature magazine, in their December 2005 review of the reliability of Wikipedia, as an example of an expert who edits Wikipedia.

 

Connelly got into trouble because an anonymous sceptic kept on watering down explanations. He was upset that an anonymous person's opinion was given equal standing to a highly recognized and honored scientists. Wikipidea conclluded that he had abused his privileges  in editing that skeptic

The complaints against him were only about his work as an editor at Wikipedia.

I repeat that no one has come up with an credible complaint about his scientific credentials or research. Stop lying.

Only by your very dishonest standards or rather lack of standards could Connelly ever be described as a charlatan. He is in fact a distinguished scientist. Stop lying.

 

In addition to which Connelly was only one of 3 authors of that paper.  You got a problem with Thomas Petersen, the lead author of the paper, or John Fleck?

 

And you're right. Intelligence agencies don't usually attach names. So we know nothing about the qualifications of its authors. What we do know as a hard fact is that far more papers even back then supported global warming over global cooling. And of course, you seem incapable of recognizing the fact that climate science barely existed back then, so whatever surmises or suspicions scientists had back then are completely irrelevant to the issue now. 

[RickBradford]

Well, if you really believe that Connolley did not repeatedly act in bad faith at Wikipedia, then there's really no hope for a productive discussion. You'll have to go down that rabbit hole on your own.

 

My points are simple, and not even controversial, I would think.

 

1) Global cooling was a lot more than a "conjecture" in the 1970s. There were plenty of respectable scientists working on the topic, and prepared to stand by predictions of global cooling, for all that they didn't have supercomputers.

 

There was even a 1973 climate conference in Germany where the consensus was that atmospheric dust from human activities would cool the planet such that "the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failures within a decade." There was plenty of dissent, which was allowed back then, but the possibility of global cooling was taken seriously.

 

2) Wikipedia is not a reliable source; nor is SkS Kidz. Quoting them as sources doesn't strengthen an argument; often, it weakens it.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Well, if you really believe that Connolley did not repeatedly act in bad faith at Wikipedia, then there's really no hope for a productive discussion. You'll have to go down that rabbit hole on your own.

 

My points are simple, and not even controversial, I would think.

 

1) Global cooling was a lot more than a "conjecture" in the 1970s. There were plenty of respectable scientists working on the topic, and prepared to stand by predictions of global cooling, for all that they didn't have supercomputers.

 

There was even a 1973 climate conference in Germany where the consensus was that atmospheric dust from human activities would cool the planet such that "the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failures within a decade." There was plenty of dissent, which was allowed back then, but the possibility of global cooling was taken seriously.

 

2) Wikipedia is not a reliable source; nor is SkS Kidz. Quoting them as sources doesn't strengthen an argument; often, it weakens it.

And why should Connelly's editing of Wikipedia effect a discussion of the facts about global warming? This is just a ploy so you can leave the discussion without providing pertinent information of your own.

 

Your points about the 70's are  pointless and besides the point

1)Who cares if global cooling scientists were a minority or majority in the 70s. (And no, Peterson, Connelly, and Frack were right but it really doesn't matter)  How is that relevant to the science today?  When microbiologists disagreee with other microbiologists do they cite research from the 19th century? Climate science was in its infancy back then in the 70's.. Only people deranged enough to believe in some sort of conspiracy would claim that what scientists thought  and what research showed back then should be determinative of what they think  and what research shows now. Or do you think scientific opinons and  research are like fine wines? The older they get, the better they get?

 

As for Wikipedia not being a reliable source nor skeptical science. They both provide voluminous links to highly respected sources. Your slander based on no evidence and no reference to particular critics is laughable. You say that skeptical science is not respected but you provide zero evidence to back that up. All you do is to make reference to is anonymous snickerers. 

 

 In addition what makes your criticism of these cites positively ludicrous is your refusal to provide links to sites that you do consider reliable. Why don't you provide links to some of these? I guess that way if I find a site and debunk its claims, you are free to maintain that's not one of the sites you had in mind. What are you hiding? The shoddy nature of the support for your arguments? It's pure intellectual cowardice on your part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

1)Who cares if global cooling scientists were a minority or majority in the 70s. 

You do. After all, it was you who posted the link that global cooling was just a "conjecture" in the 1970s. It wasn't -- it was taken seriously -- and you have been given multiple examples of that.

 

Quote

 In addition what makes your criticism of these cites positively ludicrous is your refusal to provide links to sites that you do consider reliable.

I try not to rely on climate websites -- I've warned you before about how unreliable they can be -- so I try to read the original science whenever I can. It's called "research".

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

You do. After all, it was you who posted the link that global cooling was just a "conjecture" in the 1970s. It wasn't -- it was taken seriously -- and you have been given multiple examples of that.

 

I try not to rely on climate websites -- I've warned you before about how unreliable they can be -- so I try to read the original science whenever I can. It's called "research".

And as I noted, the evidence points to the fact that it was a minority position. But the fact that you keep on harping about something that has virtually no relevance to the science of today is bizarre. obviously because

 

Fine. Provide me with links to the original peer-reviewed science.

And how many citations in this research you allegedly read go back to the 1970's?

 

And anyway, your earlier posts betray you. Before you told me I could find this information on the internet even though you wouldn't identify the sites and now you're claiming you don't use the internet for your information. Not believable.

Edited June 18, 2018 by bristolboy

[kwilco]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's interesting that the old 99% or whatever is bandied about as if it actually is of importance, but it's statistics, and we all know about statistics don't we. They can be manipulated.

Firstly, 99% of what? C C scientists apparently. What % of scientists on the planet are C C scientists? Were every single one of them asked? How many of the 99% depend on "believing" in C C for grant money?

Tell me how many scientists there are in the world and how many of them believe in C C, and give us that statistic if I'm expected to take it seriously. Not going to happen though. No one is going to ask every scientist in the world. They will ask a select few and extrapolate. So, in the end, it all depends on which scientists they ask as to the outcome. Not a very scientific way of determining a statistic.

Why would you want to  publicly air your ignorance n this topic is beyond me.....to trybe and ignore some of the biggest science, chemistry etc and blame  it on stats just reveals how hopeless out of touch you are.

[overherebc]

We will all know the correct answer in 50 years time, well I won't I'll be long gone by that time.

Suppose what I'm saying is

' you have no idea how little I care. '

The only thing I wonder about is when the house that's 3 metres above sea level will be expensive beach front. ??

[tomacht8]

The Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris), Paris climate accord or Paris climate agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance starting in the year 2020. The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of 196 parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015.^[3][4] As of June 2018, 195 UNFCCC members have signed the agreement, and 178 have become party to it.^[1] The Agreement aims long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels; and to aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C, since this would significantly reduce risks and the impacts of climate change.

 

The first time that all countries on this earth made a joint decision.

 

And then comes the super idiot trump, who knows everything better.

 

In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date by the United States cannot be before November 4, 2020, four years after the Agreement came into effect in the United States and one day after the 2020 U.S. presidential election.[5][not in citation given] The White House later clarified that the U.S. will abide by the four-year exit process.[6] Until the withdrawal takes effect, the United States may be obligated to maintain its commitments under the Agreement, such as the requirement to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations.[5]

While celebrated by some members of the Republican Party,[7] international reactions to the withdrawal were overwhelmingly negative from across the political spectrum, and the decision received substantial criticism from religious organizations, businesses, political leaders, environmentalists, and scientists and citizens from the United States and abroad.[8][9][10]

[RickBradford]

Quote

now you're claiming you don't use the internet for your information. Not believable.

Because I never said that, or anything even close. You're just making that up.

 

I said I try not to rely on climate websites, but on published scientific research, which can also often be found online. I don't know if you're capable of understanding the distinction.