Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist

[Forethat]

After reading posts on this topic for three years it is tiring to see that climate alarmists STILL haven't been able to comprehend the fundamental difference between the concept of acceleration and increase.

[stephenterry]

8 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

You do realize how many absolutely critical medications come from the byproducts of those animals you want to eliminate? Things like heparin alone require the slaughter of hundreds of millions of pigs every year in order to provide the raw materials. Get rid of the animals, watch modern medicine fall into chaos.

 

I personally am going to wake up in the morning, enjoy some tasty bacon, secure in the knowledge that I am doing my part to save millions with coronary diseases.

 

Guns don't kill people. Vegans kill people.

 

Various alternative anticoagulation regimens have been used in cases of intolerance to unfractionated heparin, including extreme hemodilution, danaparoid, ancrod, r-hirudin, abciximab, tirofiban, argatroban and others. That's not falling into medical chaos, IMO.

 

Animal processed products are a scientifically proven slow track to heart disease and cancer - carry on in ignorance, not my concern.

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

After reading posts on this topic for three years it is tiring to see that climate alarmists STILL haven't been able to comprehend the fundamental difference between the concept of acceleration and increase.

the issue is they are taking too small time interval sections

and base their version of reality on that.

taken another step, measuring day to day, they will say in the morning

that temp is accelerating upwards, and in that they are right,

and in the evening state that temp is falling at accelerating speed,

and be right then too, but be wrong when they predict the world will boil/freeze over

when they use such a small time interval to predict long term trend.

it looks like it became fashionable to predict future based on a 30 year time interval,

and that interval coincided with increasing co2 and increasing temp,

and then they made the hypothesis that this time interval reflect worlds history and future,

4.5 billion years both backwards & forwards = 30 year observed time interval,

that the correlation was a causation.

imo, the only way to break the spell is to show geological history,

that falsify this hypothesis

[nausea]

Yeah, we're definitely heading towards another global extinction event. I'll be dead, anyway. Pity those guys with kids. Actually, our only chance of long term survival depends on us getting off this planet. Fermi paradox here we come.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

After reading posts on this topic for three years it is tiring to see that climate alarmists STILL haven't been able to comprehend the fundamental difference between the concept of acceleration and increase.

Well, if you mean by that an acceleration of global temperature rise, that's one thing. But it's only a technical point. What concerns thoughtful people is the consequences of that rise Which are rising at an accelerating rate:

NASA: Greenland’s ice melt is accelerating, aligning with ‘worst case’ projections

The Greenland Ice Sheet is rapidly melting, having lost 3.8 trillion tons of ice between 1992 and 2018, a new study from NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) finds.

The study combined twenty-six independent satellite datasets to track global warming’s effect on Greenland, one of the largest ice sheets on Earth, and the ice sheet melt’s impact on rising sea levels.

The findings, which forecast an approximate three-to-five inches of global sea level rise by 2100, are in alignment with previous worst-case projections if the average rate of Greenland’s ice loss continues

https://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/2019/12/11/nasa-greenlands-ice-melt-is-accelerating-aligning-with-worst-case-projections/

 

New study finds sea level rise accelerating

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem. Nerem is a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, a fellow at Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and a member of NASA's Sea Level Change team.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

 

Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017

The total mass loss increased from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017. In 2009–2017, the mass loss was dominated by the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Sea sectors, in West Antarctica (159 ± 8 Gt/y), Wilkes Land, in East Antarctica (51 ± 13 Gt/y), and West and Northeast Peninsula (42 ± 5 Gt/y).

Recent observations have shown that the ice sheet is losing mass along the periphery due the enhanced flow of its glaciers, at a rate that has been increasing over time, while there is no long-term trend change in snowfall accumulation in the interior [i.e., Antarctica contributes to sea-level rise (SLR) principally via changes in ice dynamics] (5⇓–7). 

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The rate of global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

LOL. I live near the sea and there's zero significant sea level rise over my lifetime, and recently. That's the Pacific coast BTW.

Perhaps some are reading land subsidence as rising seas. Some even claim Bangkok is going to be affected by rising sea levels when most of us know it's the city is sinking.

[thaibeachlovers]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why sea ice breakout at McMurdo was greater in 1901 to 1904 than 70 years later, long before climate change was even considered.

Perhaps that is an inconvenient truth.

[Forethat]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. I live near the sea and there's zero significant sea level rise over my lifetime, and recently. That's the Pacific coast BTW.

Perhaps some are reading land subsidence as rising seas. Some even claim Bangkok is going to be affected by rising sea levels when most of us know it's the city is sinking.

There's a letter to the President of the Maldives published on the Spectator blog. I wonder if the numbers have changed over the 10 years since he wrote the letter? If climate alarmists are to be believed, the sea levels will raise up to 8 meters and we're all DOOOOMED!!!

 

Quote

"The IPCC vision is a rise that by the year 2100 may amount to between 30cm and 50cm. This is based on model calculations. Our figure is a 5cm rise, plus or minus 15cm."

Read the letter in full here:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2009/12/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking/

[Forethat]

3 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

near all climate scientists...

97%, right...!?

 

 

Oh God....I can't take anymore of this....

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

There's a letter to the President of the Maldives published on the Spectator blog. I wonder if the numbers have changed over the 10 years since he wrote the letter? If climate alarmists are to be believed, the sea levels will raise up to 8 meters and we're all DOOOOMED!!!

 

Read the letter in full here:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2009/12/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking/

No one in the science based climatological community has predicted anything like an 8 meter rise in the near future or even by the year 2100. It's been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread that you don't have a grasp of the facts. Why are you so eager to further confirm that?

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

97%, right...!?

 

 

Oh God....I can't take anymore of this....

More empty ridicule.

[brokenbone]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

No one in the science based climatological community has predicted anything like an 8 meter rise in the near future or even by the year 2100. It's been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread that you don't have a grasp of the facts. Why are you so eager to further confirm that?

i have seen an endless stream of predictions from ipcc and the rest of the imbeciles

how sea level is going to rise a meter before 2100,

that would be a faster rate then at the very peak of recovery from the last glacial period.

take the meds and reason: is that a logical analysis or is it mindless speculation with

no analog in earth history

[bristolboy]

39 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i have seen an endless stream of predictions from ipcc and the rest of the imbeciles

how sea level is going to rise a meter before 2100,

that would be a faster rate then at the very peak of recovery from the last glacial period.

take the meds and reason: is that a logical analysis or is it mindless speculation with

no analog in earth history

In other words, you haven't seen any projections from the climatological community of a rise of 8 meters by the year 2100 either. 

 

As for the IPCC latest projection here it is:

"For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–"

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

So the meter projection is at the outer limit. That said, your assertion

"that would be a faster rate then at the very peak of recovery from the last glacial period."

is false.

Global sea-level rise at the end of the last Ice Age interrupted by rapid 'jumps'

 Researchers have estimated that sea-level rose by an average of about 1 meter per century at the end of the last Ice Age, interrupted by rapid "jumps" during which it rose by up to 2.5 meters per century. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

 

It's also significant to note that as the results of new research come in, with each new report the IPCC has consistently raised its estimates for global sea level rise.

 

And  once again you haven't identified the person or organization that created this graph. This habit of yours doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your claims. But given what follows when you do identify the source, (see post #388)I'm not surprised that you don't.

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by bristolboy

[brokenbone]

google 'post glacial sea level rise'

and agree its significant that ipcc & fellow imbeciles rhetoric is becoming more hysterical and disconnected from reality by the day. imo, times up and the bluff is called by the evidence

that falsify the entire gibberish, none of the endless predictions of doom has come to pass.

30 years after ipcc stated we are in an irreversible spiral to burn up, drown, starve,

get malaria, get extinct, become climate refugees, get to move to siberia to survive,

and all the rest of the tactics, was proven drivel from start to finish.

once again, recovery is a linear 0.26c per century and has been for the past 4 centuries

since the depth of minor ice age,

with the only notable anomaly being that of 1700-1710 interval

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by brokenbone

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

google 'post glacial sea level rise'

and agree its significant that ipcc & fellow imbeciles rhetoric is becoming more hysterical and disconnected from reality by the day. imo, times up and the bluff is called by the evidence

that falsify the entire gibberish, none of the endless predictions of doom has come to pass.

30 years after ipcc stated we are in an irreversible spiral to burn up, drown, starve,

get malaria, get extinct, become climate refugees, get to move to siberia to survive,

and all the rest of the tactics, was proven drivel from start to finish.

once again, recovery is a linear 0.26 per century and has been for the past 4 centuries

since the depth of minor ice age,

with the only notable anomaly being that of 1700-1710 interval

 

Lots of name calling but as usual no responses to specific challenges to your claims. Instead you just move on with different untrue claims and untrue caricatures. Yes, the IPCC does predict huge problems if nothing is done to drastically reduce fossil fuel emissions. But none of those predictions say that they should already have come to pass. So the only ranting I can see is coming from you.

In fact the average global temperature has risen at a far higher rate than your claim of .26 per century as the chart below shows with various estimates coming from 4 of the leading climatological research center and all in close agreement.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-2019-second-warmest-year-on-record

As for your claims, as per usual, you provide no source. Maybe your claims come from "The Journal of Because I Say So"?

[Sujo]

Well i will leave anonymous naysayers and believe the science.

 

some light viewing.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TNvUhbLfDt4#menu

[brokenbone]

the vast majority of these hysterical climate prophesies refer to the current 'burn up & drown' prophesy  https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by brokenbone

[bristolboy]

46 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the vast majority of these hysterical climate prophesies refer to the current 'burn up & drown' prophesy  https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

 

 

And as I've listed the link twice, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community even back in the 60's and 70's was that greenhouse gases were warming the climate.

In short, citing newspaper articles is a ridiculous way to establish what the scientific consensus was during a particular era.

And nothing you've cited here has anything to do with your ridiculous and false claims about wrong predictions made by the IPCC.

But this is what you do. Every time I come up with evidence to prove the falsity of your contentions, you just jump to something else leaving behind a growing litter pile of false assertions.

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by bristolboy

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

 

And as I've listed the link twice, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community even back in the 60's and 70's was that greenhouse gases were warming the climate.

In short, citing newspaper articles is a ridiculous way to establish what the scientific consensus was during a particular era.

And nothing you've cited here has anything to do with your ridiculous and false claims about wrong predictions made by the IPCC.

But this is what you do. Every time I come up with evidence to prove the falsity of your contentions, you just jump to something else leaving behind a growing litter pile of false assertions.

 

As you step over all your debunked propaganda.

[UbonThani]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

 

And as I've listed the link twice, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community even back in the 60's and 70's was that greenhouse gases were warming the climate.

In short, citing newspaper articles is a ridiculous way to establish what the scientific consensus was during a particular era.

And nothing you've cited here has anything to do with your ridiculous and false claims about wrong predictions made by the IPCC.

But this is what you do. Every time I come up with evidence to prove the falsity of your contentions, you just jump to something else leaving behind a growing litter pile of false assertions.

 

Science is not based on "opinions"

 

It's based on facts and we have had 50 yrs of doomsday stuff.

 

Enough bs already

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, UbonThani said:

Science is not based on "opinions"

 

It's based on facts and we have had 50 yrs of doomsday stuff.

 

Enough bs already

 

Thank you for your factual contributions to this discussion. Your mastery of the data is truly remarkable.

[Forethat]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

And as I've listed the link twice, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community even back in the 60's and 70's was that greenhouse gases were warming the climate.

No <deleted> Sherlock - in the 17th century the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community was that the earth was flat, and sailors involved in long range ventures often got afraid due to fears of sailing over the edge of the world.

 

And now it's death by a whole range of apocalyptic and cataclysmic events....we're DOOOMED!

 

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Forethat said:

No <deleted> Sherlock - in the 17th century the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community was that the earth was flat, and sailors involved in long range ventures often got afraid due to fears of sailing over the edge of the world.

 

And now it's death by a whole range of apocalyptic and cataclysmic events....we're DOOOMED!

 

Wrong!  Before Copernicus the widely accepted cosmological theory was from Ptolemy:

"Ptolemy argued that the Earth was a sphere in the center of the universe, from the simple observation that half the stars were above the horizon and half were below the horizon at any time (stars on rotating stellar sphere), and the assumption that the stars were all at some modest distance from the center of the universe. If the Earth was substantially displaced from the center, this division into visible and invisible stars would not be equal.^{[n 9]}

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

And this reply of mine...

was in response to your claim in post #381 that

"The cooling issue is cyclical. In the 70's it was believed that we were being thrown into an ice age. 50 years later it's the opposite."

As I showed via a link to a peer reviewed piece of research, your contention is flatly untrue. The opinion of most of the scientific community back then was that the rise in greenhouse gases would warm the oceans and the atmosphere.

Edited February 28, 2020 by bristolboy

[Forethat]

28 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Before Copernicus the widely accepted cosmological theory

"The widely accepted cosmological theory"

 

Ok. 

[brokenbone]

On 2/27/2020 at 12:56 PM, bristolboy said:

Once again, here is a link to a peer reviewed published paper that showed that, in fact, most papers in accredited peer-reviews science journas from the years 1965 to 1979 predicted global warming due to the rise greenhouse gases.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

"Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false... In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%2E1.pdf

 

 

 

in the list of comparisons if the consensus was for a global cooling vs warming in 1960-1970,

i went trough the first three supposedly pro-warming peer reviewed papers,

but none of them argues that there was a warming trend.

none the less its interesting pdf's, and free from the moronic propaganda

that comes the minute its sensational doom inverse reasoning

 

that review is very much in line with john cooks 97% consensus counting,

if they see a technical term with the buzz words warming/co2,

they automatically register it as a pro man made temperature increase,

even tho the abstracts, let alone the full article, does not even remotely

hypothesize a global warming is underway, let alone thanks to man,

its all imagination/wishful thinking, not unlike gretas ability to see co2.

 

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%2E1.pdf page 8

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/warming_papers/sellers69.pdf

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=DPUmnHraEtAC&pg=PT68&lpg=PT68&dq=Revelle+et+al.+(1965)&source=bl&ots=--nHq8us-i&sig=ACfU3U3zbVxFnWrka2gsvPsaHdhZ4FnaAg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO6uW1ivXnAhXv4jgGHWPKA5QQ6AEwAXoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=Revelle et al. (1965)&f=false

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241%3ATEOTAW>2.0.CO%3B2

Edited February 28, 2020 by brokenbone

[brokenbone]

according to ipcc, if the eco-calypse  come to pass,

we will enjoy the same climate that let our forefathers

transition from stone age hunter gatherers to a civilization based on agriculture

during the neolithic revolution.

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

[bristolboy]

On 2/28/2020 at 8:00 AM, canuckamuck said:

As you step over all your debunked propaganda.

Thank you for your detailed factual response to my posts. Clearly you've done lots of research about this.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, brokenbone said:

according to ipcc, if the eco-calypse  come to pass,

we will enjoy the same climate that let our forefathers

transition from stone age hunter gatherers to a civilization based on agriculture

during the neolithic revolution.

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

Actually not. If strong measures are taken now, the global mean temperature will be 1.5 degrees higher and extratropical conditions considerably more so.

But even if what you contend were true, do you think that just possibly, just maybe, it might possibly be relevant that there are now 750 times the number of humans that there were then and that humans on the average consume many many times the resources than they did then?

But it is good to have a denialist acknowledge that global temperature has not been rising due to recovery from the last period of glaciation. And in fact, gradually declining. Until recently.

[bristolboy]

On 2/28/2020 at 6:26 AM, brokenbone said:

the vast majority of these hysterical climate prophesies refer to the current 'burn up & drown' prophesy  https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

 

And what has this got to do with your contentions about the IPCC? Or, for that matter, scientific consensus?