There Is A Real Problem...

[PoliticalChic]

Greeniac! It's in the urban dictionary...



Urban Dictionary: Greeniac

Greeniac

One who is completely obsessed with being more friendly to the environment; a maniac about being green.

Jeff's wife has turned into a greeniac. She threw away all of her house cleaners and now only uses vinegar to clean, simply because it's better for the environment.

#environmentally friendly#green#environmentalist#tree hugger#nature lover

if Jeff's wife is a GREENIAC then Politicalfascistnazihumanscumchic is a CHRISTiac.

"Judge a man by the reputation of his enemies."
- Arabian Proverb

 

[alang1216]

You've never said where your non-governmental education has gotten you (aside from your hatred of science, America, and most Americans).

How would you be able to judge what 'fine' is, being a government school grad yourself?

Even a 'government school grad' like myself is capable of being impressed by the accomplishments (as opposed to the words) of others. Or is this another question you will not answer?

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm sure you've spent more time looking for that elusive piece of evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Since I've spent almost NO time looking. Why? Because I don't really care the cause, I only care about the effects, and the effects seem obvious to me.

As I previously wrote, there is evidence:

NASA's climate scientists wrote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​

Evidence:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.​

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree

The methodology used for this calculation is flawed ... climatologists who don't say one way or the other are included in the "agree" column ...

more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

"More" is a weasel word, turns out to be trivially more ... IPCC 2014 gives 1.8 W/m^2 ... that's not enough power do the things climate Alarmists claim will happen ... nowhere even close ... worse still, if all that energy stayed in the atmosphere, then none is use to melt ice or warm the oceans ... and that violates the Equipartition Law as well as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...

energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

This is a blatant falsehood ... far and away water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas ... if this is your "smoking gun", then you don't have a gun in the first place ...

I don't necessarily agree with jc456 ... but his arguments are sound ... we have expensive satellites in orbit and sophisticated instruments on the surface and we measure only slight differences ... then we have extrapolate along a quartic curve to get any meaningful change over the next 100 years ... what little evidence we have is either bogus or trivial ...

The challenge remains: pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is now and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

 

[jc456]

You people who believe in AGW are always going on about the "evidence", but don't seem to be able to actually produce any of it. Why do you suppose that is?

Maybe because you choose to ignore it?

Hardly....I have probably spent more time looking for that elusive piece of evidence than you ever will...and it just isn't there...not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

And I can't help but notice that you, like all other warmers, intimate that there is evidence, but don't seem to be able to actually bring any here to slap us skeptics down with... Ever wonder why that is?

I'm sure you've spent more time looking for that elusive piece of evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Since I've spent almost NO time looking. Why? Because I don't really care the cause, I only care about the effects, and the effects seem obvious to me.

As I previously wrote, there is evidence:

NASA's climate scientists wrote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​

Evidence:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.​

so you know how to change nature? wow, dude are you a god?

 

[jc456]

Greeniac! It's in the urban dictionary...



Urban Dictionary: Greeniac

Greeniac

One who is completely obsessed with being more friendly to the environment; a maniac about being green.

Jeff's wife has turned into a greeniac. She threw away all of her house cleaners and now only uses vinegar to clean, simply because it's better for the environment.

#environmentally friendly#green#environmentalist#tree hugger#nature lover

if Jeff's wife is a GREENIAC then Politicalfascistnazihumanscumchic is a CHRISTiac.

so you believe PC isn't allowed to have a voice?

 

[alang1216]

so you know how to change nature? wow, dude are you a god?

Just a man. A man like the ancient Greeks who clear cut their forests for war ships and change their climate for the past 2,000 years.

 

[alang1216]

The challenge remains: pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is now and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

I visited Iceland a few years back and stood by a small stream. If I had been there 100 years ago I'd have been under 100 feet of glacier. It is predicted that in 100 years that glacier will vanish completely. Climate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing.

 

[SSDD]

I'm sure you've spent more time looking for that elusive piece of evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability... Since I've spent almost NO time looking. Why? Because I don't really care the cause, I only care about the effects, and the effects seem obvious to me.

And what effects would those be? Exactly what do you think is going on in the climate that is new, or unprecedented, or that could have only been caused by humans? You think an 1 degree temperature increase in the global temperature over the period of 100 plus years is even detectable without instruments? You believe you can detect a fraction of a degree in the average global temperature over your lifetime when on average the temperature difference between day and night in any given place is 10 times that or more?

Tell me, what color are the emperors new clothes?

As I previously wrote, there is evidence:

Of course you did...and no doubt, you actually believe it. Lets have a look.....

NASA's climate scientists wrote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​

And you think that is evidence of what? First off, that 97% figure is highly questionable...second, it means exactly squat. Just a few years ago, 99% of gastroenterologists, a branch of science that is much more highly disciplined than climate science believed that stress caused stomach ulcers...of course, they were wrong...but damned near every one of them thought it was true.

Just a few years ago, damned near every doctor on earth believed that salt, and cholesterol caused high blood pressure and heart disease... Till of course they found out that they were wrong.

Not so long ago, nearly every chemist on earth would have told you that the existence of quasi crystals was impossible...that is, till they found out that quasi crystals actually exist.

In fact, if you examine practically every thing we know about science today, at some point, the consensus opinion regarding that science was wrong...and a great many consensus opinions in various fields of science that are held today will fall over the coming decades and centuries as they are found to be quite wrong.

​

Evidence:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.​

Sorry guy, but that simply is not true. The outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere has been increasing..and increasing for quite some time...exactly the opposite of the predictions climate models made. It is always good to check actual observation against the predictions made by climate models...the models are rarely right.

A decent detective actually checks his evidence rather than depending on hearsay from dubious sources. Clearly you aren't a very good detective.

The fact is that there is no tropospheric hot spot which would be evidence of trapping heat in the atmosphere...if GHG's were trapping heat, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and outgoing LW radiation at the top of the atmosphere would not be increasing...sorry guy, your evidence isn't...it only demonstrates that you are willing to believe propaganda when actual evidence to the contrary is out there for anyone to see.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Well so much for that deduction...you suck at this. If energy were being trapped in the atmosphere, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot...that was to be the smoking gun proving that we are responsible...only it never happened. There is no tropospheric hot spot...and if there were a tropospheric hot spot, then the amount of long wave radiation leaving the earth would be decreasing...thus warming up that hot spot which doesn't exist...but when one looks at the actual measurements of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere, it is clear that the amount of radiation escaping the earth is increasing...precisely the opposite of that climate science predicted...

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

While CO2 has increased over the past 50 years, it isn't due to us. In fact, the peer reviewed, published science on the topic suggests that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so small as to be nearly undetectable...Again...you look at a thing that has happened and then simply assume what caused it. That isn't evidence of cause, that is only evidence that you are easily fooled...

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

Since there is no energy being trapped in the atmosphere as evidenced by the lack of a tropospheric hot spot, and the fact that outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere is increasing, it is clear that your smoking gun, is in realty, nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I don't know who fed you that bit of bullshit, but it simply is not true...

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.

So...like I said...not a shred of actual observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Every claim you have made is certainly claims made by climate models, but unfortunately, none of those claims ever actually happened..and you appear to be under the impression that because a model says it, that it must be true, even when observation clearly shows that it is not.

Your Sherlock Holmes spiel was certianly entertaining...and a new twist on the same old bullshit, but alas, you end up pointing your accusing finger at a demonstrably innocent actor. Your deductions were wrong and simply not supported by actual observations. Now, do I expect for you to change your mind on AGW and come around to accepting the observed evidence over the predictions made by models?...not a chance. This isn't a matter of science, and evidence to you, it is a matter of quasi religious faith. You are invested in this and will probably never change your mind...it is an article of faith for you and your faith is clearly strong since you have thus far convinced yourself that all sorts of non evidence is in fact evidence...

 

[SSDD]

The challenge remains: pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is now and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

I visited Iceland a few years back and stood by a small stream. If I had been there 100 years ago I'd have been under 100 feet of glacier. It is predicted that in 100 years that glacier will vanish completely. Climate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing.

Got any evidence of that, or are you just making it up as you go? What was the name of the glacier? And what might those glaciers have looked like prior to the onset of the Little Ice Age? I don't guess you realize that with the exception of the period of the Little Ice Age, the earth is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years....and the earth still hasn't warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the Little Ice Age.

Do you ever actually look anything up, or do you just regurgitate the pap you are fed by alarmists....or make it up as you go?

 

[ReinyDays]

The challenge remains: pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is now and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

I visited Iceland a few years back and stood by a small stream. If I had been there 100 years ago I'd have been under 100 feet of glacier. It is predicted that in 100 years that glacier will vanish completely. Climate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing.

How does this glacier effect the day-to-day weather ... and by extension, the average day-to-day weather ... I asked about climate, which has no specification for whether glaciers exist or not ... Iceland is mostly a polar climate, with a small fringe of sub-arctic ... a slight increase in temperature will make a slight increase in this sub-arctic sliver ... sounds like a good thing to me, you've been there, why is 12ºC instead of 10ºC a bad thing? ...

The point remains ... the interior of the island was polar 100 years ago, it's polar today and it will be polar in 100 years ... for no other reason than it's above 60ºN latitude ... glaciers have no bearing on this ...

 

[jc456]

so you know how to change nature? wow, dude are you a god?

Just a man. A man like the ancient Greeks who clear cut their forests for war ships and change their climate for the past 2,000 years.

you going to tear all the buildings down and get rid of asphalt and concrete streets? So tell us ole wise one, what's your cure for nature?

 

[mamooth]

Everyone can hear Hirono say exactly what I said she did.

Yes, which is why they know you're lying outright to everyone's face. You're a fraud who openly faked a quote.

Anyone can listen and will hear her say it is a religion, not science.

Your own source says you're lying.

Democratic senator treats climate change like a religion - The Locker Room
---
as though it’s a religion, it’s not, it’s science.”
---

When you're as deep in the liar-hole as you are, you should stop digging. But you won't. You'll just keep telling everyone to believe you over our lying ears.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everyone can hear Hirono say exactly what I said she did.

Yes, which is why they know you're lying outright to everyone's face. You're a fraud who openly faked a quote.

Anyone can listen and will hear her say it is a religion, not science.

Your own source says you're lying.

Democratic senator treats climate change like a religion - The Locker Room
---
as though it’s a religion, it’s not, it’s science.”
---

When you're as deep in the liar-hole as you are, you should stop digging. But you won't. You'll just keep telling everyone to believe you over our lying ears.

Are you really this sick???


Everyone can hear Hirono say exactly what I said she did.





But you said the headline was a 'dumb lie.'

Now you're admitting she said it....but want to 'adjust' it to make it more palatible to morons like you....



Anyone can listen and will hear her say it is a religion, not science.



At 0:37


Even with Hirono saying it herself???

"....a religion, it's not a science."

 

[ReinyDays]

I heard her say religion, not science ...

 

[alang1216]

The challenge remains: pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is now and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

I visited Iceland a few years back and stood by a small stream. If I had been there 100 years ago I'd have been under 100 feet of glacier. It is predicted that in 100 years that glacier will vanish completely. Climate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing.

Got any evidence of that, or are you just making it up as you go? What was the name of the glacier? And what might those glaciers have looked like prior to the onset of the Little Ice Age? I don't guess you realize that with the exception of the period of the Little Ice Age, the earth is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years....and the earth still hasn't warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the Little Ice Age.

Do you ever actually look anything up, or do you just regurgitate the pap you are fed by alarmists....or make it up as you go?

Sólheimajökull Glacier. Want to see the family photos? Look here for more info.

Not sure where you got your temp data but here's what I found:

 

[alang1216]

so you know how to change nature? wow, dude are you a god?

Just a man. A man like the ancient Greeks who clear cut their forests for war ships and change their climate for the past 2,000 years.

you going to tear all the buildings down and get rid of asphalt and concrete streets? So tell us ole wise one, what's your cure for nature?

I bow to those with more engineering chops than I have but there are options if we take our heads out of our butts:
New York Harbor Storm-Surge Barrier
and my nephew is building the:
Manhattan plans to build a massive $1 billion wall and park to guard against the next inevitable superstorm

 

[alang1216]

The challenge remains: pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is now and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

I visited Iceland a few years back and stood by a small stream. If I had been there 100 years ago I'd have been under 100 feet of glacier. It is predicted that in 100 years that glacier will vanish completely. Climate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing.

How does this glacier effect the day-to-day weather ... and by extension, the average day-to-day weather ... I asked about climate, which has no specification for whether glaciers exist or not ... Iceland is mostly a polar climate, with a small fringe of sub-arctic ... a slight increase in temperature will make a slight increase in this sub-arctic sliver ... sounds like a good thing to me, you've been there, why is 12ºC instead of 10ºC a bad thing? ...

The point remains ... the interior of the island was polar 100 years ago, it's polar today and it will be polar in 100 years ... for no other reason than it's above 60ºN latitude ... glaciers have no bearing on this ...

You said "if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing"? If all three are NOT the same climate must be changing. Small changes in global climate can have small changes in sea level and we already experience coastal flooding in many cases. Any rise in sea level will compound an already dangerous situation.

 

[ReinyDays]

I get my temperature data from the Vostok Ice Cores ... see where the blue line on the left jumps up to +2ºC at the beginning of the Holocene? ... that's how warm the most recent IPCC report says it will get in 100 years ... and see where this temperature is below average compared to previous interglaciations? ... also note how "real" scientists present their data in a scientific manner, instead of some childish cartoon ... did you really post a picture of Santa Claus to make your point? ...

When the North Pole is ice-free ... Santa can't build toys for all the little children ... parents will have to buy toys from the Chinese (dipped in lead) ...

I have no problem with global warming, and I have absolutely no problem with glaciers melting away ... any claim that climate is changing is a hoax ... please answer the question I asked, will most of Iceland's climate change from polar to sub-arctic? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

You said "if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing"? If all three are NOT the same climate must be changing. Small changes in global climate can have small changes in sea level and we already experience coastal flooding in many cases. Any rise in sea level will compound an already dangerous situation.

Here's the latest research on sea level rise ... Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era ... this study gives the upper bound of mean sea level rise at 26 inches between now and year 2100 ... any claim of sea level rise more than this is NOT based of data, and should be considered pure fantasy ... come this January, at either full or new Moon, head over to the coast with a 26 inch stick ... at high tide, put one end of this stick on the sand where the highest wave reaches and the other end straight up ... now level across and see where this highest wave and the highest tide will reach 100 years from now ... right, nowhere close to the existing sand berm ... do you honestly think your great-great-grandchildren will care ... or do you think they'll be more worried about these 80-year-old dumps they live in? ...

Bonus question: Why January? ...

 

[alang1216]

I get my temperature data from the Vostok Ice Cores ... see where the blue line on the left jumps up to +2ºC at the beginning of the Holocene? ... that's how warm the most recent IPCC report says it will get in 100 years ... and see where this temperature is below average compared to previous interglaciations? ... also note how "real" scientists present their data in a scientific manner, instead of some childish cartoon ... did you really post a picture of Santa Claus to make your point? ...

When the North Pole is ice-free ... Santa can't build toys for all the little children ... parents will have to buy toys from the Chinese (dipped in lead) ...

I have no problem with global warming, and I have absolutely no problem with glaciers melting away ... any claim that climate is changing is a hoax ... please answer the question I asked, will most of Iceland's climate change from polar to sub-arctic? ...

So you can extrapolate global climate from a single point on the earth? Impressive.

Who doesn't like Santa Claus? It wasn't Santa but it was NOAA.

Will Iceland's climate change from polar to sub-arctic? No idea but I can see it changing dramatically if the glaciers disappear and more solar radiation is absorbed in the summertime. Summer days are very long up there.