Animation: Ice Mass Loss on Greenland, 2003-2011

[westwall]

The whole of the scientific community dissagrees with Walleyes. Such a shame that they are all wrong

No, 76 of 79 climatologists who aren't qualified to teach a graduate level class in geology claim that. Get your facts straight.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again, you lie, Walleyes. The proxies they have for that give very good information concerning the amount of aragonite in solution for as recent as 1800.

Um, OR, I dont think proxies EVER substitute for actual measurments since there are too many variables that deny an ability to get even a certain number of significant digits for the data used from the proxy. They may be useful for guesstimates but that is not something one can compare to actually measured stats.

Take the tree ring data for example used for many AGW models. The same data that shows cooler temperatures for areas prior to acurate measuring instruments being present also shows a continuing cooling process with a resultant decline in temperatures that the current global measurements refute.

So how acurate is the tree ring data for past temperatures? We really dont know, but we do know that they dont entirely correspond to known temperatures that have actually been measured directly.

Yes, as the ocean waters warm, and become more acidic, there will be less aragonite in solution. Which is what the site demonstrates. Demonstrates with historic data, and with reasonable projections from present increases in heat and acidity. And, as has been the case with the past predictions, probably have underestimated the speed with which this will occur.

Well not the past predictions I have seen. I am old enought to remember how we only had seven years to save the Earth back in 1995 when I graudated from college after about eight years of night school.

OR, there is a huge money making industry among scientists that promote the AGW agenda, and I no longer have any confidence in the objectivity or scientific rigor of the current climate science establishment. I think this is a growing view of that discipline.

How about Munich Re, or Swiss Re? Glaciers, of which I have personally seen in several mountain ranges in the west. And which you can see worldwide from the satellite photos over the years at the USGS sites. Arctic ice, the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Observations of thousands of scientists in the very many differant disciplines in which on seas the affect of the warming.

Do you think that every scientific discipline in all the many differant nations and political systems have all conspired to fool us on this issue? Have done so, so successfully, that every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

The coordinated effort is huge, yes, and the Climate Gate emails illustrate that. Publish a critical paper and get either ostracized as a publisher or if the author get tarred as a tool of the petroleum industry. I am not making this up.

If you have read 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Khun? Scientific establishments have a long history of engaging in collusion to defend their paradigm of concepts despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.

 

[Old Rocks]

The whole of the scientific community dissagrees with Walleyes. Such a shame that they are all wrong

No, 76 of 79 climatologists who aren't qualified to teach a graduate level class in geology claim that. Get your facts straight.

Oh my. All of the scientists that disagree with Walleyes cannot be scientists. Sorry, old boy, but I know many geologists, and none of them say the stupid things that you do.

 

[Old Rocks]

Um, OR, I dont think proxies EVER substitute for actual measurments since there are too many variables that deny an ability to get even a certain number of significant digits for the data used from the proxy. They may be useful for guesstimates but that is not something one can compare to actually measured stats.

Take the tree ring data for example used for many AGW models. The same data that shows cooler temperatures for areas prior to acurate measuring instruments being present also shows a continuing cooling process with a resultant decline in temperatures that the current global measurements refute.

So how acurate is the tree ring data for past temperatures? We really dont know, but we do know that they dont entirely correspond to known temperatures that have actually been measured directly.



Well not the past predictions I have seen. I am old enought to remember how we only had seven years to save the Earth back in 1995 when I graudated from college after about eight years of night school.

OR, there is a huge money making industry among scientists that promote the AGW agenda, and I no longer have any confidence in the objectivity or scientific rigor of the current climate science establishment. I think this is a growing view of that discipline.

How about Munich Re, or Swiss Re? Glaciers, of which I have personally seen in several mountain ranges in the west. And which you can see worldwide from the satellite photos over the years at the USGS sites. Arctic ice, the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Observations of thousands of scientists in the very many differant disciplines in which on seas the affect of the warming.

Do you think that every scientific discipline in all the many differant nations and political systems have all conspired to fool us on this issue? Have done so, so successfully, that every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

The coordinated effort is huge, yes, and the Climate Gate emails illustrate that. Publish a critical paper and get either ostracized as a publisher or if the author get tarred as a tool of the petroleum industry. I am not making this up.

If you have read 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Khun? Scientific establishments have a long history of engaging in collusion to defend their paradigm of concepts despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.

I have seen one such scientific revolution up close and personal. The tectonic paradigm in geology. Yes, there were a few geologists that simply could not accept the change. However, most welcomed it, for it explained much of what could not be explained before.

You might want to read Hansen's and others reactions to the fact that Muller was going to do a massive study to determine if the data was being handled correctly. They did not ostracize him, and, before he started the study, stated that they welcomed the study.

Simple fact is that most of the projections of the effects of the warming have been far too conservative. Seems the climate is a bit more sensitive to changes than we thought.

As I have previously stated, I do not go by models, I go by observations of what is currently happening worldwide, in the crysphere, the increase in extreme weather events, the later winters and earlier springs that I have observed in nearly seventy years of living.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The whole of the scientific community dissagrees with Walleyes. Such a shame that they are all wrong

No, 76 of 79 climatologists who aren't qualified to teach a graduate level class in geology claim that. Get your facts straight.

Oh my. All of the scientists that disagree with Walleyes cannot be scientists. Sorry, old boy, but I know many geologists, and none of them say the stupid things that you do.

?
why does the right hate science?