The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[Andaman Al]

Whatever we do in our crass attempts at building a 'civilised' 'high tech' world, the Earth has an answer so it is not a problem. IF AGW is a reality or even if it is just the earths natural cycle, the earth will sort it out no problem at all.

 

If the ice caps melt, the Thermohaline Circulation that causes warm water - therefore warm air currents to circulate the circulate the globe will stop, and that will then be the catalyst for the start of the next global ice age. It could take  2000 years until the ice age restarts but it will do for sure - 100%, and we will then have another 15-20 000 year ice age and likely not a thing will remain of our civilisation. Ho hum!

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ocean-conveyor-belt/

[The manic]

The same alarmist experts that tell us eggs give us high cholesterol. To them climate change is an act of faith.

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, The manic said:

The same alarmist experts that tell us eggs give us high cholesterol. To them climate change is an act of faith.

The doctors who studied causes of cholesterol build up in the arteries are not the scientiests studying CO2 related global warming.  But to some people science, or rather science a-la-cart (I believe the science I want to believe and reject the science I don't like, with no scientific basis for my choices) is an act of convenience and mental laziness.

[55Jay]

With respect to the opening salvo of the OP, late snow storms happen. 

 

I was passing through NE Pennsylvania in 2007, right on the cusp of Spring, on my way from middle east to California.  Freak snow storm dropped 3+ feet of snow in one night.  The locals couldn't believe the timing of it.  Neither could as I was due to fly out the next afternoon, and the local airport was shut down. 

[Dumbastheycome]

No matter  which  ex spurt  anyone  wishes  to  agree  with it seems  the  arctic  ice cap  and  world wide  glaciers  have  chosen  to  ignore  the  arguments  and  retreat  in unison!

Even Everest  is  struggling  to  retain  its  magnificence .

The  northern sea  passage  is  now  available  to the   detriment  of   the southern canals.

So if  the  average  global  temperature  is  not  responsible  then  what is?

What  really  drives  the  argument  is the  question of  whether or  not  human activity  is significant in what  is  undeniable

The  sad  aspect  of that is  that it  comes   down as  usual to the  question of abandoning the  wholesale proliferation  of  pollution and  thus the  affluence  derived  from it..

Given  that the  world  is already  convinced that  gross waste is  acceptable in order  to  retain the  pretence  of  

modern  sophistication by way of  consumerism it is difficult to see  any solution.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

There is a LIST of PHDs that peer reviewed it, look up .. were there more hot days back then or are there more now?  If those charts that Tony Heller created are 'fake' well then create the 'real' chart.. Tony Heller has had those charts up for years no one has ever said they are 'fake'; they are not fake-there were simply more days over 9x & 10x then than there are now..    

 

6 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

There is a LIST of PHDs that peer reviewed it, look up .. were there more hot days back then or are there more now?  If those charts that Tony Heller created are 'fake' well then create the 'real' chart.. Tony Heller has had those charts up for years no one has ever said they are 'fake'; they are not fake-there were simply more days over 9x & 10x then than there are now..    

"Tony Heller, a birthed [sic] who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym “Steven Goddard,” wrote a blog post that claimed “NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934.”...

"However, the libertarian magazine Reason noted that even climate “skeptic” blogger Anthony Watts said that Goddard made “major errors in his analysis” and criticized the implication that “numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way.”...

"Can we all agree that, if your denialist nuttery is such that even Anthony Watts can’t back you – you, my friend, are a denialist nut."

https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=Steve+Goddard

 

Heller, who is also a "birther" is not a climate scientist and as far as can be ascertained has never had any of his work published in a climate science journal.  

Edited October 22, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[boomerangutang]

To me, one of the most convincing stats pointing to a warming world is. . . . . . 

 

>>>  glaciers ww are receding and their remnants are thinner than they've been historically.

 

There are a plethora of other indications (of a warming world), but the receding glaciers are rather convincing.  In case anyone needs a refresher:   ice melts when temps go up. 

[jmd8800]

Usually when a topic like this pops up I remember the line in a Simon and Garfunkle song:

 

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

 

If you really want to get on with human's impact on the planet then read 'Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

To me, one of the most convincing stats pointing to a warming world is. . . . . . 

 

>>>  glaciers ww are receding and their remnants are thinner than they've been historically.

 

There are a plethora of other indications (of a warming world), but the receding glaciers are rather convincing.  In case anyone needs a refresher:   ice melts when temps go up. 

The ratio of daily record highs to lows is also telling. Here are numbers for the USA:

".Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend...

If we look in terms of decades, the 2000s and 2010s have seen record highs outweigh record lows by a higher ratio than any other decade in the last century, even during the notoriously hot Dust Bowl era of the 1930s."

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs-record-lows

[Scott]

A post from an unapproved source has been removed along with replies.  

 

 

[XJ650]

Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.

“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum this past September, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Claire Parkinson, author of the study and climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.”

 

 

NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains

[pkspeaker]

The article posted here is about sea levels and melting ice in relation to sea levels, sea ice does not effect sea levels.  I already posted multiple times to links to the dmi greenland & antarctica ice gains.. 

 

but anyways sea ice is easier to fudge anyways, but here are the charts from either the NOAA or NSIDC

 

Funny thing is, about a year ago we were looking at some major ice rebounds at:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

 

that was from the University of Illinois .. so after not visiting this site for a while and seeing the reply I decided to go there and see what the charts were looking like today and guess what, nothins comin up, i'll try to bring it up again later.. this happens all the time, when the data turns against the global warming agenda-it suddenly disappears.  Universities need the research grant money to keep coming, that often means screwing around.. here is a video where he made screenshots of those charts that were there.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og6Yihyqrz4

The northern sea ice has been rebounding.

 

Then finally consider that these charts all start from 1979, there was that cooling trend or flat trend from the 1930's-1970's before global warming resumed.. they only launched the satellites from 1979-

[Grouse]

33 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

The article posted here is about sea levels and melting ice in relation to sea levels, sea ice does not effect sea levels.  I already posted multiple times to links to the dmi greenland & antarctica ice gains.. 

 

but anyways sea ice is easier to fudge anyways, but here are the charts from either the NOAA or NSIDC

 

Funny thing is, about a year ago we were looking at some major ice rebounds at:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

 

that was from the University of Illinois .. so after not visiting this site for a while and seeing the reply I decided to go there and see what the charts were looking like today and guess what, nothins comin up, i'll try to bring it up again later.. this happens all the time, when the data turns against the global warming agenda-it suddenly disappears.  Universities need the research grant money to keep coming, that often means screwing around.. here is a video where he made screenshots of those charts that were there.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og6Yihyqrz4

The northern sea ice has been rebounding.

 

Then finally consider that these charts all start from 1979, there was that cooling trend or flat trend from the 1930's-1970's before global warming resumed.. they only launched the satellites from 1979-

You realise 68% of land is in the northern hemisphere v 32% in the south?

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

The article posted here is about sea levels and melting ice in relation to sea levels, sea ice does not effect sea levels.  I already posted multiple times to links to the dmi greenland & antarctica ice gains.. 

 

but anyways sea ice is easier to fudge anyways, but here are the charts from either the NOAA or NSIDC

 

Funny thing is, about a year ago we were looking at some major ice rebounds at:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

 

that was from the University of Illinois .. so after not visiting this site for a while and seeing the reply I decided to go there and see what the charts were looking like today and guess what, nothins comin up, i'll try to bring it up again later.. this happens all the time, when the data turns against the global warming agenda-it suddenly disappears.  Universities need the research grant money to keep coming, that often means screwing around.. here is a video where he made screenshots of those charts that were there.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og6Yihyqrz4

The northern sea ice has been rebounding.

 

Then finally consider that these charts all start from 1979, there was that cooling trend or flat trend from the 1930's-1970's before global warming resumed.. they only launched the satellites from 1979-

"The article posted here is about sea levels and melting ice in relation to sea levels, sea ice does not effect sea levels."

 

True, but ice on land does, and there is a lot of ice on Greenland and Antarctica.

[Grouse]

 

This takes a swipe at tabloid BS

[partington]

Clearly global warming and sea levels rising is nonsense because:

 

1. I felt cold yesterday morning.

2. The Netherlands used to be underwater and now it isn't. 

3. When water melts it evaporates and so goes away.

QED

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, partington said:

Clearly global warming and sea levels rising is nonsense because:

 

1. I felt cold yesterday morning.

2. The Netherlands used to be underwater and now it isn't. 

3. When water melts it evaporates and so goes away.

QED

It's a pity you're not as famous as Bob Geldof or Leonardo di Caprio, or you could say that in public and immediately be awarded a 'Hero of the Planet' badge, feel great about yourself and have lots of friends.

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 10/22/2017 at 9:47 PM, boomerangutang said:

To me, one of the most convincing stats pointing to a warming world is. . . . . . 

 

>>>  glaciers ww are receding and their remnants are thinner than they've been historically.

 

There are a plethora of other indications (of a warming world), but the receding glaciers are rather convincing.  In case anyone needs a refresher:   ice melts when temps go up. 

Not necessary, it doesn't melt when temperature goes from minus 20 C to minus 10 C.

 

 

[Grouse]

55 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Not necessary, it doesn't melt when temperature goes from minus 20 C to minus 10 C.

 

 

I often complain that ice in bars is not cold enough. -22C is not bad but often it is -1C. I want more than latent heat of melting to cool my drink. Idiots don't understand

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I often complain that ice in bars is not cold enough. -22C is not bad but often it is -1C. I want more than latent heat of melting to cool my drink. Idiots don't understand

That's because they know their physics :) 

 

Ice warming requires  2090 J/(kg*°C) of energy.

Ice melting requires 333000J°/kg

And water warming requires 4190 J/(kg*°C)

 

From -22°C to 0°C of 1kg ice can cool the drink by 45980 Joules, while ice melting requires 7.2 times more energy. There is advantage of having cooler ice, but it is quite miniscule. 

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

51 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I often complain that ice in bars is not cold enough. -22C is not bad but often it is -1C. I want more than latent heat of melting to cool my drink. Idiots don't understand

The -22 C ice will give you 13.25% more cooling effect. You could of course also just ask for more ice.

[Here It Is]

The polar bears seem to be doing okay, so nothing to worry about.

[ExpatOilWorker]

6 minutes ago, Here It Is said:

The polar bears seem to be doing okay, so nothing to worry about.

You need to worry. Soon the propaganda machine will shift gear and we all have to care about the poor sad Puffins. For them, life is a cliffhanger.

Edited November 16, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker

[nausea]

You, in your old age:

 

[Jack Mountain]

Still waiting for the Ice Age they predicted in 80-ties.  

[Grouse]

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731397-stopping-flow-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-not-enough-it-has-be-sucked-out

 

Wise words from the Economist as always

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Jack Mountain said:

Still waiting for the Ice Age they predicted in 80-ties.  

The thing about science is that it envolves once more data is being collected. In the 80's there was quite minimal amount of climate data compared to what we have today. 

 

It's kind of funny as the elderly people, 50 and over are so keen to deny the sciences and its advantages. It's funny because the science is the very one reason they are still alive today. 

 

But hey, perhaps it was the miracle of gods and religions and believing in static 'sciences' from 2000 years ago. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Guest
typo

[ExpatOilWorker]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731397-stopping-flow-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-not-enough-it-has-be-sucked-out

 

Wise words from the Economist as always

That is news from the future and dated "Nov 18th 2017", 2 days from now.

 

[heybruce]

47 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

That is news from the future and dated "Nov 18th 2017", 2 days from now.

 

You don't read news magazines, do you?

[Jack Mountain]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

The thing about science is that it envolves once more data is being collected. In the 80's there was quite minimal amount of climate data compared to what we have today. 

 

It's kind of funny as the elderly people, 50 and over are so keen to deny the sciences and its advantages. It's funny because the science is the very one reason they are still alive today. 

 

But hey, perhaps it was the miracle of gods and religions and believing in static 'sciences' from 2000 years ago. 

 

 

 

 

Apples and peers. Cu in 25 years.