FUBAR And Climate Change

[CrusaderFrank]

Uhh...glaciers have been melting for 12000 years. There have been times when it was much warmer than now and there was zero ice on the planet and there was more life than ever. But don’t let the scientific facts stop you from spreading fear about the planet naturally warming up.

This argument is the standard line from all deniers. You have bought into anti-science propaganda. Sad.

Two words, dipshit. Ice Ages.

Naturally cooled, got cold; naturally warmed, got hot. Freezing, thawing, freezing, thawing...in cycles with zero input from Homo sapiens at all. Oops, I’m sorry. Am I sounding like a denier while not denying anything?

Just a shame people like you are endangering future generations by impeding action on climate change.

The worst culprits of pollution are the Chinese. Yet who favors tariffs and moving manufacturing back to the US, and who is opposed to punishing China for their transgressions against the environment? It’s you regressives and globalist pigs that keep wanting to reward China.

Otherwise, what are you proposing? That we give up all forms of energy and go back to the stone ages?

Yeah, the Chinese just destroyed million of miles of corals and pollute the fuck out of everything -- not a fucking peep from the Socialist democrats

 

[theHawk]

If you are a denier at least be concerned about air, water and land pollution, you can't deny that.

I’m all for a cleaner environment. That’s why I favor heavy tariffs on China until they clean up their act.

You regressives on the other hand scream about “trade wars” and say we should do nothing but continue let China destroy the environment while they make our iPhones.

 

[fncceo]

We are fucking up this planet beyond recognition.

I wore a condom.

 

[steamroller]

We are fucking up this planet beyond recognition. Warning signs everywhere on not just climate change but on environmental degradation.

Do not vote for anyone that denies climate change. Do not vote for anyone that favors gutting our environmental laws. Future generations depend on it.

Unless you're an idiot, you shouldn't vote for anybody. The best thing to do would be to write in the name of a Fascist leader.

 

[mamooth]

I resent the phony onslaught of fear and concern and emergency status of the GWarming circus BECAUSE -- I care about all the other environmental that GW propaganda has choked to death for the past 30 years.

And you've always been stupid for saying such a thing, being it's an obvious false dichotomy fallacy.

If you disagree, back up your BS, and name some burning environmental issues hat got less attention because of climate science.

 

[mamooth]

That 22% quoted by lay press is the HIGH estimate of numbers that have a "confidence bound" almost as large as the number itself. So in REALITY -- that 22% could become 12% +/- 10% --- with LOW END OF THE ESTIMATE for loss since 1958 being as low as 2%.

I'm sure you can back up that specific example, if you didn't just make up some wild scare tactics there. Please proceed. That is, demonstrate the 22% claim was the upper bound.

Let me focus some of that for you.. The 2degC +/- 0.8degC in the WINTER -- is not the source of ice melt.

Speaking of not reading the paper ...

---
Previous research has shown that (lower elevation maritime) glaciers in the St. Elias mountains have winter FLHs above 6–27% of their ablation areas [Arendt et al., 2009], meaning that they melt during both summer and winter seasons. Rising winter temperatures will increase FLHs, exposing more glacier area to above freezing temperatures and increasing the proportion of winter precipitation that falls as rain.
---

You're making this too easy.

But the LACK OF PRECIPT in the winter IS.

And the paper pointed out that's one cause. And that's just one paper. The source referenced in the news article has 37 papers. If you'd looked at some of them (which I doubt you ever do), you would have found that glaciers with increasing precip also retreated. So much for your theory that lack of precip was the main driver. Next time, try to READ some science beyond the bits that you think support you.

And AGAIN, the summer temp anomaly has an "error bar" nearly as large as the mean value

0.4 is nearly as big as 1.0? More of your statistical mastery, it would seem.

Note -- how little is KNOWN and how it's EMPHASIZED.

Aerial photos show 22% decline in surface area. There's no "may" about that. And I'm not sure what the error bar was, but it's damn small, being that landsat photos are accurate to a few meters. So, your claim of 12% +/- 10% was some pretty brazen BS.

 

[flacaltenn]

That 22% quoted by lay press is the HIGH estimate of numbers that have a "confidence bound" almost as large as the number itself. So in REALITY -- that 22% could become 12% +/- 10% --- with LOW END OF THE ESTIMATE for loss since 1958 being as low as 2%.

I'm sure you can back up that specific example, if you didn't just make up some wild scare tactics there. Please proceed. That is, demonstrate the 22% claim was the upper bound.

Let me focus some of that for you.. The 2degC +/- 0.8degC in the WINTER -- is not the source of ice melt.

Speaking of not reading the paper ...

---
Previous research has shown that (lower elevation maritime) glaciers in the St. Elias mountains have winter FLHs above 6–27% of their ablation areas [Arendt et al., 2009], meaning that they melt during both summer and winter seasons. Rising winter temperatures will increase FLHs, exposing more glacier area to above freezing temperatures and increasing the proportion of winter precipitation that falls as rain.
---

You're making this too easy.

But the LACK OF PRECIPT in the winter IS.

And the paper pointed out that's one cause. And that's just one paper. The source referenced in the news article has 37 papers. If you'd looked at some of them (which I doubt you ever do), you would have found that glaciers with increasing precip also retreated. So much for your theory that lack of precip was the main driver. Next time, try to READ some science beyond the bits that you think support you.

And AGAIN, the summer temp anomaly has an "error bar" nearly as large as the mean value

0.4 is nearly as big as 1.0? More of your statistical mastery, it would seem.

Note -- how little is KNOWN and how it's EMPHASIZED.

Aerial photos show 22% decline in surface area. There's no "may" about that. And I'm not sure what the error bar was, but it's damn small, being that landsat photos are accurate to a few meters. So, your claim of 12% +/- 10% was some pretty brazen BS.

Not even worth it to converse with you.. Photographs of "surface areas" is NOT VOLUME LOSS. The paper I quoted was done almost exclusively as VOLUME LOSS...

Volume loss is the real indication of glacial melting.

 

[skookerasbil]

We are fucking up this planet beyond recognition. Warning signs everywhere on not just climate change but on environmental degradation.

Do not vote for anyone that denies climate change. Do not vote for anyone that favors gutting our environmental laws. Future generations depend on it.



'We've never seen this': massive Canadian glaciers shrinking rapidly

You dummy....look at the thread posted up on this page. Voters are not caring about this except those who tend to the hysterical.

Get some real responsibilities in life s0n....this way you stop worrying about st00pod shit

 

[skookerasbil]

That 22% quoted by lay press is the HIGH estimate of numbers that have a "confidence bound" almost as large as the number itself. So in REALITY -- that 22% could become 12% +/- 10% --- with LOW END OF THE ESTIMATE for loss since 1958 being as low as 2%.

I'm sure you can back up that specific example, if you didn't just make up some wild scare tactics there. Please proceed. That is, demonstrate the 22% claim was the upper bound.

Let me focus some of that for you.. The 2degC +/- 0.8degC in the WINTER -- is not the source of ice melt.

Speaking of not reading the paper ...

---
Previous research has shown that (lower elevation maritime) glaciers in the St. Elias mountains have winter FLHs above 6–27% of their ablation areas [Arendt et al., 2009], meaning that they melt during both summer and winter seasons. Rising winter temperatures will increase FLHs, exposing more glacier area to above freezing temperatures and increasing the proportion of winter precipitation that falls as rain.
---

You're making this too easy.

But the LACK OF PRECIPT in the winter IS.

And the paper pointed out that's one cause. And that's just one paper. The source referenced in the news article has 37 papers. If you'd looked at some of them (which I doubt you ever do), you would have found that glaciers with increasing precip also retreated. So much for your theory that lack of precip was the main driver. Next time, try to READ some science beyond the bits that you think support you.

And AGAIN, the summer temp anomaly has an "error bar" nearly as large as the mean value

0.4 is nearly as big as 1.0? More of your statistical mastery, it would seem.

Note -- how little is KNOWN and how it's EMPHASIZED.

Aerial photos show 22% decline in surface area. There's no "may" about that. And I'm not sure what the error bar was, but it's damn small, being that landsat photos are accurate to a few meters. So, your claim of 12% +/- 10% was some pretty brazen BS.

Well there is a first in this forum.....a denier being accused of "scare tactics".. Just goes to show....give a nutter a forum and they'll display oddball unconventional thinking.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Canada should blame the Chinese for the soot they're releasing- that's what's causing the melt

 

[mamooth]

Well there is a first in this forum.....a denier being accused of "scare tactics".

What do you mean? I've always pointed out the pathological dishonesty of gutless denier scare tactics. You've always been particular wimpy in that regard. I won't say feminine, because moral toughness is not related to gender or orientation. For example, on a moral and intellectual level, the most flagrant lisping fairy looks positively butch compared to you. In terms of debate, you're a mincing wrist-flapping pajama boi.

The common moral flaw among deniers is how they're authoritarian-follower personality types. That is, they're fundamentally yellow. They crave daddy-figures to tell them how to think and act, and they're all too scared to break with their herd and say "no, I won't lie along with you". That's why they keep telling the same lies over and over, in full knowledge that they're lying. Daddy told them to lie, and they're too scared to disobey daddy.

 

[mamooth]

Not even worth it to converse with you..

That's your opinion, but I for one enjoy busting you for your data faking.

Photographs of "surface areas" is NOT VOLUME LOSS.

Nobody said it was, so that evasion won't work. The point being discussed was how you claimed the 22% figure was the high-end of the uncertainty range. That claim was BS on your part.

The paper I quoted was done almost exclusively as VOLUME LOSS...

Except in the first sentence of the abstract, which you apparently failed to read.
---
Abstract
[1] Glaciers in the Yukon, NW Canada, lost 22% of their surface area during the 50 years following the 1957–58 International Geophysical Year---
---

I see you also didn't want to address the failure of your "It's the low precipitation!" theory. Glaciers elsewhere in the area with above average precipitation were also declining, so clearly precipitation was not the main driver of glacial retreat. Scientists, not being morons, understood that. You didn't, so you started raving about the conspiracy.

Not being a narcissist has benefits. When I don't understand something, I look further, instead of assuming that I obviously know more about everything on every topic than the actual experts, who are clearly all frauds.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well there is a first in this forum.....a denier being accused of "scare tactics".

What do you mean? I've always pointed out the pathological dishonesty of gutless denier scare tactics. You've always been particular wimpy in that regard. I won't say feminine, because moral toughness is not related to gender or orientation. For example, on a moral and intellectual level, the most flagrant lisping fairy looks positively butch compared to you. In terms of debate, you're a mincing wrist-flapping pajama boi.

The common moral flaw among deniers is how they're authoritarian-follower personality types. That is, they're fundamentally yellow. They crave daddy-figures to tell them how to think and act, and they're all too scared to break with their herd and say "no, I won't lie along with you". That's why they keep telling the same lies over and over, in full knowledge that they're lying. Daddy told them to lie, and they're too scared to disobey daddy.

What's the expected temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

 

[flacaltenn]

I see you also didn't want to address the failure of your "It's the low precipitation!" theory. Glaciers elsewhere in the area with above average precipitation were also declining, so clearly precipitation was not the main driver of glacial retreat. Scientists, not being morons, understood that. You didn't, so you started raving about the conspiracy.

This is me.. Dueling with you with just my little finger. The rest of me is writing an article for publication next month...

See that fart above of yours? From the paper I quoted ---

Of these stations, the 14 located within the Yukon record similar summer warming (0.99°C), yet a reduction in winter precipitation (on average, −22 mm).

ALL of the Yukon network stations reported an average winter deficit of precip of almost an inch over that long period. ALL OF THEM.

We're talking about glaciers in the Yukon -- right Squidward???

 

[mamooth]

Of these stations, the 14 located within the Yukon record similar summer warming (0.99°C), yet a reduction in winter precipitation (on average, −22 mm). ALL of the Yukon network stations reported an average winter deficit of precip of almost an inch over that long period. ALL OF THEM.

No, that's not what that says. No wonder you always fail so hard at this. You simply don't understand what you read.

It talked about the stations in the Yukon for that mountain range. It did not talk about the rest of the Yukon, or Alaska, or BC.

We're talking about glaciers in the Yukon -- right

_You_ are restricting yourself to one mountain range in the Yukon. That is, you're engaging in a cherrypicking fallacy. _I_ am being intellectually honest and talking about the broader area.

Squidward???

Why is acting like a grownup always such a challenge for you?

Oh, nice evasion. You know, after getting busted for lying about the 22% thing.

 

[mamooth]

What's the expected temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

At equilibrium, about 1.5C. What's that got to do with anything?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's the expected temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

At equilibrium, about 1.5C. What's that got to do with anything?

1.5C? Can you show that incredible increase in a lab or did you just pull a number out of the blue?

 

[mamooth]

[1.5C? Can you show that incredible increase in a lab or did you just pull a number out of the blue?

The best estimate for sensitivity is around 3.0C/doubling. We've seen half a double, so 1.5C.

Your "lab" question is retarded, of course, since you can't make a lab the size of the earth. Why did you think the question wasn't retarded?