The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[Crick]

Okay, we're waiting for the pro-Warming side to present some counter evidence. Or to interpret the evidence presented above differently.

C'mon, guys! It's my side that're supposed to be the heavy-brow-ridge green-toothed rednecks, mindlessly repeating what Fox News tells us, unable to understand the True Science even if we stumbled across it.

Settle some of that Settled Science on us here: are the ice caps and glaciers melting away? Let's see some facts and figures.

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Glacier mass balance | Measuring mass balance | Mass balance gradients | Mass balance through time | Further reading | References | Comments | Glacier mass balance The mass balance of a glacier is a concept critical to all theories of glacier flow and behaviour. It is simple enough, really: mass...

www.antarcticglaciers.org

From a Glaciers Perspective

Glacier Change in a world of Climate Change

blogs.agu.org

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Glacier mass balance | Measuring mass balance | Mass balance gradients | Mass balance through time | Further reading | References | Comments | Glacier mass balance The mass balance of a glacier is a concept critical to all theories of glacier flow and behaviour. It is simple enough, really: mass...

www.antarcticglaciers.org

AND

Global warming due to loss of large ice masses and Arctic summer sea ice - Nature Communications

The disintegration of cryosphere elements such as the Arctic summer sea ice, mountain glaciers, Greenland and West Antarctica is associated with temperature and radiative feedbacks. In this work, the authors quantify these feedbacks and find an additional global warming of 0.43°C.

www.nature.com

 

[ding]

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Glacier mass balance | Measuring mass balance | Mass balance gradients | Mass balance through time | Further reading | References | Comments | Glacier mass balance The mass balance of a glacier is a concept critical to all theories of glacier flow and behaviour. It is simple enough, really: mass...

www.antarcticglaciers.org

From a Glaciers Perspective

Glacier Change in a world of Climate Change

blogs.agu.org

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Glacier mass balance | Measuring mass balance | Mass balance gradients | Mass balance through time | Further reading | References | Comments | Glacier mass balance The mass balance of a glacier is a concept critical to all theories of glacier flow and behaviour. It is simple enough, really: mass...

www.antarcticglaciers.org

AND

Global warming due to loss of large ice masses and Arctic summer sea ice - Nature Communications

The disintegration of cryosphere elements such as the Arctic summer sea ice, mountain glaciers, Greenland and West Antarctica is associated with temperature and radiative feedbacks. In this work, the authors quantify these feedbacks and find an additional global warming of 0.43°C.

www.nature.com

Doesn't that happen in every interglacial period?

 

[Crick]

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Glacier mass balance | Measuring mass balance | Mass balance gradients | Mass balance through time | Further reading | References | Comments | Glacier mass balance The mass balance of a glacier is a concept critical to all theories of glacier flow and behaviour. It is simple enough, really: mass...

www.antarcticglaciers.org

From a Glaciers Perspective

Glacier Change in a world of Climate Change

blogs.agu.org

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Glacier mass balance | Measuring mass balance | Mass balance gradients | Mass balance through time | Further reading | References | Comments | Glacier mass balance The mass balance of a glacier is a concept critical to all theories of glacier flow and behaviour. It is simple enough, really: mass...

www.antarcticglaciers.org

AND

Global warming due to loss of large ice masses and Arctic summer sea ice - Nature Communications

The disintegration of cryosphere elements such as the Arctic summer sea ice, mountain glaciers, Greenland and West Antarctica is associated with temperature and radiative feedbacks. In this work, the authors quantify these feedbacks and find an additional global warming of 0.43°C.

www.nature.com

Doug1943 wanted to see some facts and figures regarding the loss of ice. I provided them. I hope to see a comment from Doug1943

 

[Doug1943]

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Glacier mass balance | Measuring mass balance | Mass balance gradients | Mass balance through time | Further reading | References | Comments | Glacier mass balance The mass balance of a glacier is a concept critical to all theories of glacier flow and behaviour. It is simple enough, really: mass...

www.antarcticglaciers.org

From a Glaciers Perspective

Glacier Change in a world of Climate Change

blogs.agu.org

An introduction to Glacier Mass Balance

Glacier mass balance | Measuring mass balance | Mass balance gradients | Mass balance through time | Further reading | References | Comments | Glacier mass balance The mass balance of a glacier is a concept critical to all theories of glacier flow and behaviour. It is simple enough, really: mass...

www.antarcticglaciers.org

AND

Global warming due to loss of large ice masses and Arctic summer sea ice - Nature Communications

The disintegration of cryosphere elements such as the Arctic summer sea ice, mountain glaciers, Greenland and West Antarctica is associated with temperature and radiative feedbacks. In this work, the authors quantify these feedbacks and find an additional global warming of 0.43°C.

www.nature.com

Okay, good! Here is some hard data we can argue about.

Anti AGWers, over to you!

Doug1943 wanted to see some facts and figures regarding the loss of ice. I provided them. I hope to see a comment from Doug1943

Thank you very much! This is just the sort of thing I was hoping for. I've had preliminary quick read of the 'mass balance' essay, and will read it again in a day or two to consolidate my understanding of the concepts. Then I'll have a close look at some of these graphs.

But ... I can't evaluate them -- way above my pay grade. So I hope someone from the other camp will have a go. Then we can have a rational argument.

Generally, I believe the serious people who are on the 'Don't panic' side say that, while the facts the pro-AGW side present are correct, that they are not as frightening as we are supposed to think ...i.e not so much, and/or not so new.

But I'll wait for someone well-versed in this subject to reply.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Okay, good! Here is some hard data we can argue about.

Anti AGWers, over to you!

Thank you very much! This is just the sort of thing I was hoping for. I've had preliminary quick read of the 'mass balance' essay, and will read it again in a day or two to consolidate my understanding of the concepts. Then I'll have a close look at some of these graphs.

But ... I can't evaluate them -- way above my pay grade. So I hope someone from the other camp will have a go. Then we can have a rational argument.

Generally, I believe the serious people who are on the 'Don't panic' side say that, while the facts the pro-AGW side present are correct, that they are not as frightening as we are supposed to think ...i.e not so much, and/or not so new.

But I'll wait for someone well-versed in this subject to reply.

Wow! That looks like a lot!!!

How many 10^3 kg/m^2 are left?

 

[Crick]

View attachment 763434


Wow! That looks like a lot!!!

How many 10^3 kg/m^2 are left?

But you're going to show us that it isn't. However, it does PROVE that ice mass is being lost, that glaciers and ice sheets are not growing as many of your compatriots are claiming.

 

[Doug1943]

But you're going to show us that it isn't. However, it does PROVE that ice mass is being lost, that glaciers and ice sheets are not growing as many of your compatriots are claiming.

I have not put the mental energy into trying to understand the whole AGW thing that I should have. I've assumed that it would involve weeks, maybe months, of reading, maybe re-learning stuff I forgot long ago, like Fast Fourier Transforms and lots of new things involving computer models ... so I deliberately kept from having a hard opinion, although by temperament I lean towards the 'precautionary principle', and trust in the consensus of qualified people (undermined a lot over the last few years), and have a general inclincation towards electric cars, high-speed trains, non-polluting fuels, renewable energy -- independently of the whole global warming thing. And I take 'peak oil' seriously.

... but I do read this and that, from both sides. I've just started a book by a real physicist called Unsettled. I looked for serious critical reviews of it and couldn't find any. (If anyone knows of any, please post links to them here.)

But I'm hoping the serious people on both sides here will post serious arguments. We don't need any quick one-liner insults or quips.

Just statements of fact, like:
A: X is going down. B: Yes, but so slowly that at this rate it will take two centuries to be noticeable.
A: But the rate is increasing. B. But this phenonenon started in 1930, before there was significant emission from automobiles.

This forum obviously has some smart people from both sides. I'll bet I'm not alone in wanting to see the best arguments -- put simply enough so that you don't need a BSc in Physics or Chemistry to understand them.

And hey -- one of us is a professional book editor. If the arguments are good enough ... maybe she'll be able to turn them into a book! With proceeds going to ... some charity we all support. If there is one. Or to US Message Board's expenses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But you're going to show us that it isn't. However, it does PROVE that ice mass is being lost, that glaciers and ice sheets are not growing as many of your compatriots are claiming.

But you're going to show us that it isn't.

I am?

However, it does PROVE that ice mass is being lost,

Okay.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Doug1943 wanted to see some facts and figures regarding the loss of ice. I provided them. I hope to see a comment from Doug1943

Yet you continue to ignore the Volcano melting cause of which I posted actual published science paper several times and that the losses are trivial against total mass.

How many times have you seen this?

Your inability to be honest has become legendary.

 

[Doug1943]

Okay, as I understand it, re ice mass loss ...

Can we all agree on two things? Namely,

(1) Yes, ice mass is being lost. Each year, there is less ice. As an analogy, suppose every week, I am $100 dollars poorer. I'm losing money, steadily. Every year, I'm $5200 dollars poorer.

(2) But, compared to the total ice mass there is, this loss is tiny, trivial. It's like I started with a billion dollars, so in a hundred years, I'll go from $1,000,000,000 to $999,480,000.

Or ... is the loss that tiny? I just picked those money-loss numbers out of the air. They're not meant to be proportional to the ice mass being lost. If I'm wrong and the loss is much more substantial than that, let's hear the correction. AND ... is the rate of loss increasing? Maybe my analogy should be that I'm losing $100 this week, $200 next week, $300 the week after ...

Unless either or both of those caveats are true, it looks like the "deniers" have won this one. But now it's the other side's turn. (And, can we leave personal insults out of this?)

I suppose there is a third option: namely, that although the ice mass being lost is tiny compared to the total, it's still important because if even a small amount is lost it will cause bad things to happen. It's like saying that my $100 a week loss is funding a gang of robbers who are going to use the money to tunnel into my bank when their robber-fund gets up to a $100 000.. So if I don't stop the loss now, I'll face a catastrophic loss in about 20 years.

Anyway, the "affirmers" now have the stage.

And ... does anyone know of any serious critical reviews of Unsettled, by Steven E. Koonin? It's just a few bucks on Amazon. Here's the editorial blurb for it.

"Surging sea levels are inundating the coasts."

"Hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming fiercer and more frequent."

"Climate change will be an economic disaster."

You've heard all this presented as fact. But according to science, all of these statements are profoundly misleading.

When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that "the science is settled." In reality, the long game of telephone from research to reports to the popular media is corrupted by misunderstanding and misinformation. Core questions - about the way the climate is responding to our influence, and what the impacts will be - remain largely unanswered. The climate is changing, but the why and how aren't as clear as you've probably been led to believe.

Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience - including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration - to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.

Fascinating, clear-headed, and full of surprises, this book gives listeners the tools to both understand the climate issue and be savvier consumers of science media in general. Koonin takes listeners behind the headlines to the more nuanced science itself, showing us where it comes from and guiding us through the implications of the evidence. He dispels popular myths and unveils little-known truths: despite a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1970. What's more, the models we use to predict the future aren't able to accurately describe the climate of the past, suggesting they are deeply flawed.

Koonin also tackles society's response to a changing climate, using data-driven analysis to explain why many proposed "solutions" would be ineffective, and discussing how alternatives like adaptation and, if necessary, geoengineering will ensure humanity continues to prosper. Unsettled is a reality check buoyed by hope, offering the truth about climate science that you aren't getting elsewhere - what we know, what we don't, and what it all means for our future.

The very first review on Amazon -- today, anyway -- is the best critical review of Koonin's book I've found so far.

 

[Crick]

Yet you continue to ignore the Volcano melting cause of which I posted actual published science paper several times and that the losses are trivial against total mass.

How many times have you seen this?

Your inability to be honest has become legendary.

I have seen it. Does it show that ice mass is NOT decreasing? No.

 

[Crick]

Okay, as I understand it, re ice mass loss ...

Can we all agree on two things? Namely,

(1) Yes, ice mass is being lost. Each year, there is less ice. As an analogy, suppose every week, I am $100 dollars poorer. I'm losing money, steadily. Every year, I'm $5200 dollars poorer.

(2) But, compared to the total ice mass there is, this loss is tiny, trivial. It's like I started with a billion dollars, so in a hundred years, I'll go from $1,000,000,000 to $999,480,000.

Or ... is the loss that tiny? I just picked those money-loss numbers out of the air. They're not meant to be proportional to the ice mass being lost. If I'm wrong and the loss is much more substantial than that, let's hear the correction. AND ... is the rate of loss increasing? Maybe my analogy should be that I'm losing $100 this week, $200 next week, $300 the week after ...

Unless either or both of those caveats are true, it looks like the "deniers" have won this one. But now it's the other side's turn. (And, can we leave personal insults out of this?)

I suppose there is a third option: namely, that although the ice mass being lost is tiny compared to the total, it's still important because if even a small amount is lost it will cause bad things to happen. It's like saying that my $100 a week loss is funding a gang of robbers who are going to use the money to tunnel into my bank when their robber-fund gets up to a $100 000.. So if I don't stop the loss now, I'll face a catastrophic loss in about 20 years.

Anyway, the "affirmers" now have the stage.

And ... does anyone know of any serious critical reviews of Unsettled, by Steven E. Koonin? It's just a few bucks on Amazon. Here's the editorial blurb for it.

The very first review on Amazon -- today, anyway -- is the best critical review of Koonin's book I've found so far.

Might I suggest that rather than assign much value to the rantings of the ignorant, you have a look at a very in depth assessment of the science behind it all. Go to AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and have a peek at why very close to every single on of the world's scientists believe that the world is getting warmer, that this is a threat to human well being and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

 

[Doug1943]

Might I suggest that rather than assign much value to the rantings of the ignorant, you have a look at a very in depth assessment of the science behind it all. Go to AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and have a peek at why very close to every single on of the world's scientists believe that the world is getting warmer, that this is a threat to human well being and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

Yes, I should have done this sort of thing a long time ago. But ... like most of us, I have to rely on the experts for anything technical. (And recently, my trust in the 'experts' has eroded. Example: the origins of the Covid virus. I was told by the experts that it was a natural development, sourced from bats, and that only crazy Rightwing racists believed it was an escape from the Wuhan biowarfare lab. But now ...)

But, yet and still, if the experts were unanimous on this issue, it would be no problem.

But I know that they are not. And I know that near-unanimity is not the same as unanimity, especially in a field where we're relying on computer models (which I do know a little bit about), lots of data (in a 'noisy' environment), where there are financial/career considerations on both sides...

AND where it's not a question of 'Yes' or 'No', but of 'what are the causes?', 'how much?', 'how long?' 'what are the likely effects?' 'when did it start?' 'Is this unique to our times, or were there previous periods of warming, before the internal combustion engine?'

Anyway, when I came across this forum, I was impressed by the intellectual quality of a lot of the participants. So I thought it might be fruitful to have a limited, focussed, debate.

However, I will definitely read that AR6 document.

 

[Crick]

Yes, I should have done this sort of thing a long time ago. But ... like most of us, I have to rely on the experts for anything technical. (And recently, my trust in the 'experts' has eroded. Example: the origins of the Covid virus. I was told by the experts that it was a natural development, sourced from bats, and that only crazy Rightwing racists believed it was an escape from the Wuhan biowarfare lab. But now ...)

But, yet and still, if the experts were unanimous on this issue, it would be no problem.

But I know that they are not. And I know that near-unanimity is not the same as unanimity, especially in a field where we're relying on computer models (which I do know a little bit about), lots of data (in a 'noisy' environment), where there are financial/career considerations on both sides...

AND where it's not a question of 'Yes' or 'No', but of 'what are the causes?', 'how much?', 'how long?' 'what are the likely effects?' 'when did it start?' 'Is this unique to our times, or were there previous periods of warming, before the internal combustion engine?'

Anyway, when I came across this forum, I was impressed by the intellectual quality of a lot of the participants. So I thought it might be fruitful to have a limited, focussed, debate.

However, I will definitely read that AR6 document.

It is a bit of a monster but it includes a concise portion aimed at a more lay audience called "Summary for Policymakers (SPM). That would be a good place to start.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have seen it. Does it show that ice mass is NOT decreasing? No.

You as usual move the goalpost with irrelevant questions since you have NEVER explained to us why the small melting is a concern to the planet in the first place thus your focus on small things is a waste of time.

Just 15,000 years ago the sea level was around 350-400 feet LOWER than now then in just a few thousand years rises rapidly far more rapidly than in today's data, yet the planet goes on and the Human Species is all over the planet today.

Most of the easy to melt ice has already occurred long ago which is why there isn't any viable concern today.

 

[jc456]

Yes, I should have done this sort of thing a long time ago. But ... like most of us, I have to rely on the experts for anything technical. (And recently, my trust in the 'experts' has eroded. Example: the origins of the Covid virus. I was told by the experts that it was a natural development, sourced from bats, and that only crazy Rightwing racists believed it was an escape from the Wuhan biowarfare lab. But now ...)

But, yet and still, if the experts were unanimous on this issue, it would be no problem.

But I know that they are not. And I know that near-unanimity is not the same as unanimity, especially in a field where we're relying on computer models (which I do know a little bit about), lots of data (in a 'noisy' environment), where there are financial/career considerations on both sides...

AND where it's not a question of 'Yes' or 'No', but of 'what are the causes?', 'how much?', 'how long?' 'what are the likely effects?' 'when did it start?' 'Is this unique to our times, or were there previous periods of warming, before the internal combustion engine?'

Anyway, when I came across this forum, I was impressed by the intellectual quality of a lot of the participants. So I thought it might be fruitful to have a limited, focussed, debate.

However, I will definitely read that AR6 document.

And those experts earning money for their conformity to demofks positions on their green energy financial gains

 

[Crick]

PhD’s whose livelihoods depend on “Global Warming” panic? Those “PhD’s”? And why do you dismiss the zillions of PhD’s who have debunked the “Global Warming” scam?

Researchers are not paid from research grants. They are salaried employees typically working either for the government or for educational institutions. Now, the fossil fuel industries, their livelihoods ARE dependent on convincing people like you to hold the very opinions you're espousing here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Researchers are not paid from research grants. They are salaried employees typically working either for the government or for educational institutions. Now, the fossil fuel industries, their livelihoods ARE dependent on convincing people like you to hold the very opinions you're espousing here.

The fossil fuel industry doesn't have to convince anyone.
They make the most useful products in the world.
Green "researchers" don't make anything useful.

 

[Doug1943]

I suspect that in any serious policy difference, we can discern possible material interests behind the positions taken by all sides.

However, I doubt many scientists just outright falsify their beliefs in order to get research grants.

On the other hand, in the academic community, at the moment, there are certain issues -- mainlyhaving to do with race and sex -- where the dominant consensus is held with quasi-religious fervor ... and by "religious" I mean the religion of the 16th Century with its punishments for heretics..

Climate change is among these issues, although the penalty for dissent is not so great as on the race and sex questions.. But still, it's not like having a dissenting view on the solar neutrino problem.

Nonetheless, if I were doing research/development on, say, fusion power, or anything involving the generation, storage or transmission of electricity -- solar cells, or battery design ... I wouldn't be infifferent to the fact that I could justify asking for more money on the grounds that it will help stave off catastrophic climate change.

And, on the other side, of course the material inerests of the fossil fuel industry-related scientists are obvious.

So let's just call it even, and put ouir energy into looking at the facts.

This shouldn't be a Left vs Right issue! We have enough reasons to hate each other, without adding what should be a question of pure fact to them.

 

[Sunsettommy]

University of Maine

Annals of Glaciology 39 2004

Climate Variability in West Antarctica Derived from Annual Accumulation-Rate Records from ITASE Firn/Ice Cores

Susan KASPARI, Paul A. MAYEWSKI, Daniel A. DIXON, Vandy Blue SPIKES, Sharon B. SNEED, Michael J. HANDLEY, Gordon S. HAMILTON Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, 303 Bryand Global Sciences Center, Orono, ME 04469, USA

Excerpt:

ABSTRACT. Thirteen annually resolved accumulation-rate records covering the last 200 years from the Pine Island–Thwaites and Ross drainage systems and the South Pole are used to examine climate variability over West Antarctica. Accumulation is controlled spatially by the topography of the ice sheet, and temporally by changes in moisture transport and cyclonic activity. A comparison of mean accumulation since 1970 at each site to the long-term mean indicates an increase in accumulation for sites located in the western sector of the Pine Island–Thwaites drainage system. Accumulation is negatively associated with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) for sites near the ice divide, and periods of sustained negative SOI (1940–42, 1991–95) correspond to above-mean accumulation at most sites. Correlations of the accumulation-rate records with sea-level pressure (SLP) and the SOI suggest that accumulation near the ice divide and in the Ross drainage system may be associated with the midlatitudes. The post-1970 increase in accumulation coupled with strong SLP–accumulation-rate correlations near the coast suggests recent intensification of cyclonic activity in the Pine Island– Thwaites drainage system

LINK to 12 page PDF