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

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

this is unbecoming, its pure illiterate propaganda with no understanding whatsoever

about what is going on. educate yourself, this is a pro renewable engineer btw

 

Sure. Lazard, one of the pre-emininent financial advisory and asset management companies in the world, is promoting propaganda about renewable energy. Do you understand that this company lives and dies by its financial advice to its investors? Again, what you're claiming is that Lazard is promoting "pure illiterate propaganda" to their investors, who will then go broke? So Lazard is committing corporate suicide all in order to advance renewable energy? How ridiculous can you be?

And what you've got is an outdated video from a solitary engineer against the high powered team of experts Lazard employs to arrive at its conclusion? It is to laugh.

[SunsetT]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

not bad.....animals release methane from both ends.

Me too these days.....????!

[Cryingdick]

Well if it is irreversible seems we should prepare for the consequences instead of trying to stop the irreversible.

[CanuckThai]

Don't throw away your arctic gear just yet....

 

The last ice age was 12,000 years ago. At that time the sea level was 120m lower than today. The onset of an ice age is related to changes in the Earth's tilt and orbit. 

 

During the beginning of the Quaternary glaciation, from about 2.7 million to 1 million years ago, these cold glacial periods occurred every 41,000 years. However, during the last 800,000 years, huge glacial sheets have appeared less frequently — about every 100,000 years...

 

 

[UbonThani]

Artic ice growing

Polar bear numbers up

80% Pacific islands up or same

 

Let's not let facts get in the way of the climate scam.

[UbonThani]

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

 

Pollution is cooling us

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Couldn't care less about financial cost or who foots the bill.

 

Tax me, put extra costs on goods and services, force change, really don't care how it is financed, as long as action is taken.

 

Man made climate change is a real threat to our species..

 

 

IMO overpopulation is the greatest threat to the survival of humans.

In comparison to CO2 population growth CAN be stopped if enough political will is exerted. Be great if western governments stopped paying women to have babies for a start.

If population increases as fast as at present it won't matter whether climate change is man made or not, IMO.

 Anyway, no democratic government will survive if it increases taxation significntly to pay for whatever they think will stop CO2 increase ( which isn't possible anyway, as most CO2 comes from natural sources ).

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Well if it is irreversible seems we should prepare for the consequences instead of trying to stop the irreversible.

That would involve paying out for governments. Far more lucrative to promote a scenario that they can tax to "fix", never mind that humans can't "fix" climate.

Sadly, when the predictions come, IMO, to naught, the present lot of politicians will be living it up on their huge pensions.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's not your readers who are confused. You might look elsewhere closer to home. You ever hear that saying about an iceberg being 9/10 underwater. That means 1/10 of it is above water. So when it melts, that 10th is no longer above the water. It is the water. In fact, it's virtually a wash both literally and figuratively. How do you not know this?

Hmmmm. Sea ice doesn't make icebergs. Icebergs in Antarctica come from the barrier breaking off, and perhaps glaciers on the banana belt.

Sea ice melting makes no difference to sea level.

[Bluespunk]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO overpopulation is the greatest threat to the survival of humans.

In comparison to CO2 population growth CAN be stopped if enough political will is exerted. Be great if western governments stopped paying women to have babies for a start.

If population increases as fast as at present it won't matter whether climate change is man made or not, IMO.

 Anyway, no democratic government will survive if it increases taxation significntly to pay for whatever they think will stop CO2 increase ( which isn't possible anyway, as most CO2 comes from natural sources ).

Again with this ****. 
 

So how would you enforce your programme of social control?
 

What criteria would you apply to choose who has children?

 

What happens when people refuse your dictates?

 

Which parts of the world in particular are you saying need your social control policies?

 

Be specific please. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Bluespunk

[UbonThani]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Again with this ****. 
 

So how would you enforce your programme of social control?
 

What criteria would you apply to choose who has children?

 

What happens when people refuse your dictates?

 

Which parts of the world in particular are you saying need your social control policies?

 

Be specific please. 

Easy. Stop child welfare. Fine people $10k for having a kid.

 

It's mostly poor lazy people in the west pumping out 5 or 6 kids. They get massive handouts.

 

Another idea is to sink cruise ships. Those people arent much good anyway.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, UbonThani said:

Easy. Stop child welfare. Fine people $10k for having a kid.

 

It's mostly poor lazy people in the west pumping out 5 or 6 kids. They get massive handouts.

 

Another idea is to sink cruise ships. Those people arent much good anyway.

 

 

Ah, eugenics like generalisations. 
 

Excellent...

Edited February 21, 2020 by Bluespunk

[UbonThani]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Man made climate change is a real threat to our species..

Mostly a con. Temps are insensitive to co2 at higher levels and pollutants are cooling the world by blocking sunlight.

 

World crops are up. World doesnt need saving from a co2 $ con except stop the con.

[UbonThani]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Ah, eugenics like generalisations. 
 

Excellent...

Facts. Mostly poor pumping out kids. To trap guys or get $.

 

Bargirls pump out kids to farangs for money. Western ones get handouts plus $ from father.

 

$ run the world.

[Bluespunk]

Just now, UbonThani said:

Facts. Mostly poor pumping out kids. To trap guys or get $.

 

Bargirls pump out kids to farangs for money. Western ones get handouts plus $ from father.

 

$ run the world.

Poor, lazy people eh...

 

You’ve switched from the West to Thailand- but your social Darwinism BS remains. 

[UbonThani]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Poor, lazy people eh...

 

You’ve switched from the West to Thailand- but your social Darwinism BS remains. 

Just facts. Ive met lots of them also stats confirm this.

 

We need warm temps to feed 10bn people. Cooling will kill millions and millions.

 

Lets hope nature keeps warming despite man cooling the planet.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

Just now, UbonThani said:

Just facts. Ive met lots of them also stats confirm this.

 

We need warm temps to feed 10bn people. Cooling will kill millions and millions.

 

Lets hope nature keeps warming despite man cooling the planet.

 

 

Not facts, something pretending to be such to hide what it really is. 

[Odysseus123]

Ah eugenics...

 

An alternative point of view about the world's population-'Empty Planet'

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

Mostly a con. Temps are insensitive to co2 at higher levels and pollutants are cooling the world by blocking sunlight.

 

World crops are up. World doesnt need saving from a co2 $ con except stop the con.

You made it look like I posted that silly statement. I didn't.

When quoting you need to quote the original poster, not from someone else's post quoting someone else.

[Krataiboy]

On 2/20/2020 at 7:49 PM, bristolboy said:

Got news for you. The planet had stopped warming about 5 thousand years ago.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

" In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere. In some locations, this could be true for winter as well. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period

And I have some news for you. . .

 

"The fact is the tiny 0.7C recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850, which is coincidentally when the global temperature record begins, could easily be natural and 95 percent explained by solar activity and ocean oscillations, and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene Epoch".

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/16/and-then-they-came-for-the-holocene-new-paper-suggests-removing-the-holocene-epoch-from-the-geologic-timescale/

 

Or, if you'd prefer the same conclusions in a more easily digestible format:

 

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Krataiboy

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

And I have some news for you. . .

 

"The fact is the tiny 0.7C recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850, which is coincidentally when the global temperature record begins, could easily be natural and 95 percent explained by solar activity and ocean oscillations, and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene Epoch".

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/16/and-then-they-came-for-the-holocene-new-paper-suggests-removing-the-holocene-epoch-from-the-geologic-timescale/

 

Or, if you'd prefer the same conclusions in a more easily digestible format:

 

 

More partial and suspect data. First off, you'll note that the graph in the video is only of Greenland. It's not a global temperature average. So who cares about it? Here's a global one: 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Notice anything about the black line at the right end of the graph?

But that graph in the video does demonstrate the dishonesty or cluelessness of the people who cited it. In fact, the little ice was was not a global phenomenon and not even homogenous in Europe and North American. As a major study published in Nature established, the only time in the last 2000 years that temperatures have risen globally over 98 percent of the planet is coincident with the warming we are now experiencing with the onset of the industrial era.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

And I have some news for you. . .

 

"The fact is the tiny 0.7C recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850, which is coincidentally when the global temperature record begins, could easily be natural and 95 percent explained by solar activity and ocean oscillations, and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene Epoch".

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/16/and-then-they-came-for-the-holocene-new-paper-suggests-removing-the-holocene-epoch-from-the-geologic-timescale/

 

Or, if you'd prefer the same conclusions in a more easily digestible format:

 

 

Here's some more about that misleading and outdated graph:

Factcheck: What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change

A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.

Based on an early Greenland ice core record produced back in 1997, versions of the graph have, variously, mislabeled the x-axis, excluded the modern observational temperature record and conflated a single location in Greenland with the whole world.

More recently, researchers have drilled numerous additional ice cores throughout Greenland and produced an updated estimate past Greenland temperatures.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

As the article goes on to say, most likely this is some version of the graph created by Don Easterbrook. Not surprisingly, it's chockful of flaws. Easterbrook is the fellow who predicted global cooling would being in about 2008.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/

The  decade from 2010 through 2019 has proved to be the warmest on record and the decade from 2000 through 2009 is the 2nd warmest. Way to go Don!

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

More partial and suspect data. First off, you'll note that the graph in the video is only of Greenland. It's not a global temperature average. So who cares about it? Here's a global one: 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Notice anything about the black line at the right end of the graph?

But that graph in the video does demonstrate the dishonesty or cluelessness of the people who cited it. In fact, the little ice was was not a global phenomenon and not even homogenous in Europe and North American. As a major study published in Nature established, the only time in the last 2000 years that temperatures have risen globally over 98 percent of the planet is coincident with the warming we are now experiencing with the onset of the industrial era.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

 

 

looks like someone pulled a 'mann nature trick' on that graph,

by splicing in that black line at the end of the graph,

with special reference to co2.

metoffice states there was no warming at all 1998-2013,

right where that black line try to imply an escalation in the recovery from little ice age.

why would anyone start splicing in measured data from 'the industrial age' aka co2 emissions 1900 when metoffice has measured data every year since 

1659 at the depth of the little ice age one might wonder ?

 

my theory is that by showing measured data since they originated 1659,

and then superimpose co2 emissions on that measured data,

it show no correlation whatsoever between temp & co2,

but that doesnt rhyme with the narrative that temp only started

to increase when co2 emissions started.

 

so how to fix that ? heres an idea, only splice in measured data

right when modern industry started

Edited February 21, 2020 by brokenbone

[UbonThani]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

More partial and suspect data. First off, you'll note that the graph in the video is only of Greenland. It's not a global temperature average. So who cares about it? Here's a global one: 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Notice anything about the black line at the right end of the graph?

But that graph in the video does demonstrate the dishonesty or cluelessness of the people who cited it. In fact, the little ice was was not a global phenomenon and not even homogenous in Europe and North American. As a major study published in Nature established, the only time in the last 2000 years that temperatures have risen globally over 98 percent of the planet is coincident with the warming we are now experiencing with the onset of the industrial era.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

 

 

Wiki is discredited and you use that? Please

[UbonThani]

54 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

looks like someone pulled a 'mann nature trick' on that graph,

by splicing in that black line at the end of the graph,

with special reference to co2.

metoffice states there was no warming at all 1998-2013,

right where that black line try to imply an escalation in the recovery from little ice age.

why would anyone start splicing in measured data from 'the industrial age' aka co2 emissions 1900 when metoffice has measured data every year since 

1659 at the depth of the little ice age one might wonder ?

 

my theory is that by showing measured data since they originated 1659,

and then superimpose co2 emissions on that measured data,

it show no correlation whatsoever between temp & co2,

but that doesnt rhyme with the narrative that temp only started

to increase when co2 emissions started.

 

so how to fix that ? heres an idea, only splice in measured data

right when modern industry started

Correlation is not causation though. Science is about causation. The whole co2 movement is psuedo science. Totally corrupt and political like food science in the 1900s.

[UbonThani]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Here's some more about that misleading and outdated graph:

Factcheck: What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change

A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.

Based on an early Greenland ice core record produced back in 1997, versions of the graph have, variously, mislabeled the x-axis, excluded the modern observational temperature record and conflated a single location in Greenland with the whole world.

More recently, researchers have drilled numerous additional ice cores throughout Greenland and produced an updated estimate past Greenland temperatures.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

As the article goes on to say, most likely this is some version of the graph created by Don Easterbrook. Not surprisingly, it's chockful of flaws. Easterbrook is the fellow who predicted global cooling would being in about 2008.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/

The  decade from 2010 through 2019 has proved to be the warmest on record and the decade from 2000 through 2009 is the 2nd warmest. Way to go Don!

What records? The earth is 4bn years old. This crazy pseudo science is a joke.

 

Saying the warmist on record and ignoring 4bn years is just daft. It's like studying the last millisecond of a football match and drawing conclusions from that.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, brokenbone said:

metoffice states there was no warming at all 1998-2013,

False. Here's a quote from the met office and an explanation of how certain sources lied about what the Met Office actually said:

"The Telegraph’s article is based on the Met Office’s latest temperature forecast, issued at the end of last year. The new forecast says that by the period 2013 to 2017, global temperatures will have risen to about 0.43 degrees above the long term average.

This is 0.11 degrees lower than the Met Office’s last round of predictions for temperature rise over roughly the same period, released in 2007."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-met-offices-revised-forecast-still-doesnt-show-global-warming-has-stopped

And here's what the Met office says in the year 2020:

"Dr Colin Morice of the Met Office Hadley Centre said: “Our collective global temperature figures agree that 2019 joins the other years from 2015 as the five warmest years on record.

“Each decade from the 1980s has been successively warmer than all the decades that came before. 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/confirmation-that-2019-concludes-warmest-decade-on-record

 

One of the ways denialist websites deceive is by starting with the year 1998. 1998 was the year of a massively powerful El Nino. As those of use who have even a cursory acquaintance with climatology know, powerful El Ninos boost  global temperatures. But the trendline tells another story.

As the Met Office notes:

"Dr Morice concluded: “While we expect global mean temperatures to continue to rise in general, we don’t expect to see year-on-year increases because of the influence of natural variability in the climate system.”

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/confirmation-that-2019-concludes-warmest-decade-on-record

 

[overherebc]

On 2/21/2020 at 8:43 AM, overherebc said:

If the sea-ice is frozen sea water then when it melts it will make no difference to sea levels.

If the ice melting is from glacier ice that forms on land then it's adding to the water already in the sea so levels will rise.

I wonder why some find that amusing and would love to hear their explanation. ????

[SunsetT]

On 2/21/2020 at 10:48 AM, Cryingdick said:

Well if it is irreversible seems we should prepare for the consequences instead of trying to stop the irreversible.

Yes prepare to die! But we must still try to do what we can for our children and children's children; and any possible survivors.

[Krataiboy]

Is it just me? Or do others see the irony of Forum members having a healthy free-for-all on climate change - while the UN IPCC's top boffins stubbornly refuse a public debate with fellow scientists who are deniers or sceptics?

 

Science is never "settled", as the global warming lobby defensively insists. If it were, we would still believe the earth was flat, that the Sun circled our planet, and that bleeding a patient half to death was the best way to cure him.

 

The high priests of climate change seek to impose their apocalyptic forecasts upon the rest of us like the immutable tenets of a medieval religion. Increasing numbers of dissenters among the scientific community are treatedas heretics and apostates and cast into the academic wilderness.

 

What, one can't help asking, have these climate catastrophe merchants got to hide?
 

Well, for starters, the inconvenient truth (sorry, Al) that the the climate apocalypse scenario has little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with reshaping our existing way of life under a socialist-style new world order of "sustainable development" run by an unelected scientific technocracy. 

 

You don't have to take my word for it. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, has admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to bring crash capitalism.

 

She let the cat out of the bag at a UN news conference in Brussels, when she declared, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution".

 

The climate may not be changing, but lots of other things soon will be - and for the worse - unless we wake up to what is really going on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Krataiboy