Yukon Glaciers

[skookerasbil]

Holy crap.......had to scroll down for 7 1/2 minutes on the list of growing glaciers!

 

[mamooth]

And those growing glaciers are a tiny minority of total glaciers. Cherrypicking fallacy, one that only a total retard would fall for.

Low altitude glaciers are seeing more days above freezing, so they're melting more and retreating. Those are the majority of glaciers.

High altitude glaciers are colder. Temperatures there have risen from "way below freezing" to "Still way below freezing, but slightly warmer", so they're not melting more. They are receiving more snowfall, because warming causes rising absolute humidity levels, which leads to more snowfall. Hence, those glaciers are growing.

So, the glaciers are reacting just as climate science predicted. Yet another stunningly successful prediction. Ho hum.

As that was middle-school level science, so most deniers will be unable to grasp it. If they could think, they wouldn't be deniers.

Any other stupid deflections you want to try, cultists? Old Rocks was right, and you deniers doing a retard-dogpile on him doesn't change that.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And those growing glaciers are a tiny minority of total glaciers. Cherrypicking fallacy, one that only a total retard would fall for.

Low altitude glaciers are seeing more days above freezing, so they're melting more and retreating. Those are the majority of glaciers.

High altitude glaciers are colder. Temperatures there have risen from "way below freezing" to "Still way below freezing, but slightly warmer", so they're not melting more. They are receiving more snowfall, because warming causes rising absolute humidity levels, which leads to more snowfall. Hence, those glaciers are growing.

So, the glaciers are reacting just as climate science predicted. Yet another stunningly successful prediction. Ho hum.

As that was middle-school level science, so most deniers will be unable to grasp it. If they could think, they wouldn't be deniers.

Any other stupid deflections you want to try, cultists? Old Rocks was right, and you deniers doing a retard-dogpile on him doesn't change that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You say nothing about Old Rocks misleading video of a small area of the Yukon, but get angry over a long list GROWING GLACIERS in many nations in many areas of the world. You are so shallow in this stuff because you are deep into the AGW propaganda, that you have no choice but make stupid rationalizations over and over to maintain your delusion.

This is basically what you are saying,

Bwack!, glaciers aren't growing, not growing,, not growing, bwack, bwack!

You are so pathetic.

 

[skookerasbil]

And those growing glaciers are a tiny minority of total glaciers. Cherrypicking fallacy, one that only a total retard would fall for.

Low altitude glaciers are seeing more days above freezing, so they're melting more and retreating. Those are the majority of glaciers.

High altitude glaciers are colder. Temperatures there have risen from "way below freezing" to "Still way below freezing, but slightly warmer", so they're not melting more. They are receiving more snowfall, because warming causes rising absolute humidity levels, which leads to more snowfall. Hence, those glaciers are growing.

So, the glaciers are reacting just as climate science predicted. Yet another stunningly successful prediction. Ho hum.

As that was middle-school level science, so most deniers will be unable to grasp it. If they could think, they wouldn't be deniers.

Any other stupid deflections you want to try, cultists? Old Rocks was right, and you deniers doing a retard-dogpile on him doesn't change that.

But not winning s0n............denier dogpile retards are winning!!. Deniers don't care if they are not "grasping it".

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ballot-measures-taking-aim-at-climate-change-fall-13370355.php

Ho Hum

 

[flacaltenn]

There are people on this thread that have been flap yapping about a cooling trend for many years. Yet, by every measure, we are warming, and doing so rapidly. One of the best measures of whether we are warming or cooling is glaciers. They reflect long term trends.

Did this one just last week.. FUBAR And Climate Change

Where the heck were ya?

 

[mamooth]

You say nothing about Old Rocks misleading video of a small area of the Yukon,

Why do you think it was misleading? The glaciers are retreating, there and over most of the world.

but get angry over a long list GROWING GLACIERS in many nations in many areas of the world.

I understand. You fell hard for that cherrypicking scam. It's typical for those who have been scammed to get very angry at the people who reveal the scam, because they can't accept that they allowed themselves to be scammed.

You are so shallow in this stuff because you are deep into the AGW

As one example of how you act, you're still claiming the IPCC predicted 0.30C/decade warming, after I directly debunked that lie.

Global Warming

Your nonsense claim was false, and you know it, but you still peddle it. Conclusion? You care nothing about the facts, hence you have no credibility.

 

[Meister]

Glaciers have been retreating for the last 10,000+ years. I'm just surprised that they are retreating today.

 

[flacaltenn]

You say nothing about Old Rocks misleading video of a small area of the Yukon,

Why do you think it was misleading? The glaciers are retreating, there and over most of the world.

but get angry over a long list GROWING GLACIERS in many nations in many areas of the world.

I understand. You fell hard for that cherrypicking scam. It's typical for those who have been scammed to get very angry at the people who reveal the scam, because they can't accept that they allowed themselves to be scammed.

You are so shallow in this stuff because you are deep into the AGW

As one example of how you act, you're still claiming the IPCC predicted 0.30C/decade warming, after I directly debunked that lie.

Global Warming

Your nonsense claim was false, and you know it, but you still peddle it. Conclusion? You care nothing about the facts, hence you have no credibility.

Radical End Zone celebration by the Squidward. But there's a flag on the field and play is going back.

Quoting the next 2 decade rate is never the issue. The issue for policy and public planning would always require a five or 10 decade accurate prediction. Because of the ever decreasing rate estimates coming out since the circus came to town.

So quoting the RATE for just 20 years is not representative at all of the URGENCY of the problem. It's always been the shape of curve going out BEYOND that point that mattered. And in AR4, the awful scary teaser is still there for policy experts and the public and morons to mangle and misinterpret...

Projections of Future Changes in Climate - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

But thanks for pointing out how the original 1980s HYSTERIA that scared OldyRocks and mostly leftist Democrats around the world shitless has been debunked.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You say nothing about Old Rocks misleading video of a small area of the Yukon,

Why do you think it was misleading? The glaciers are retreating, there and over most of the world.

but get angry over a long list GROWING GLACIERS in many nations in many areas of the world.

I understand. You fell hard for that cherrypicking scam. It's typical for those who have been scammed to get very angry at the people who reveal the scam, because they can't accept that they allowed themselves to be scammed.

You are so shallow in this stuff because you are deep into the AGW

As one example of how you act, you're still claiming the IPCC predicted 0.30C/decade warming, after I directly debunked that lie.

Global Warming

Your nonsense claim was false, and you know it, but you still peddle it. Conclusion? You care nothing about the facts, hence you have no credibility.

What YOU keep missing is that the CURRENT CO2 emission rate is well above the year 2000 emission rate scenario, which stated a .10C/decade rate , that you can now safely drop, since the year 2000 emission scenario is obviously too low, which means it has to be at least.20C/decade rate, but actually higher since the CO2 emission rate is reaching at least the B2 scenario level (which means higher than .20C/decade rate), actual temperature data has NEVER reached the minimum .20C/decade since 1990 when they started their wild guessing game.

Here again from the 2007 IPCC:

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios."

That was the MINIMUM warming rate based on their SRES emission scenarios, while the .1C/decade you idiotically hang onto despite that it isn't staying anywhere near the year 2000 emission rate at all, OBVIOUSLY! which is why what I said that it was actually around the .30C/decade rate when you add the additional warming rate on top of the already stated .20C/decade rate based on the FIRST TWO decade SRES emission scenario. The emission rate has been exceeding the SRES emission rate for a long while now.

.30C/decade is a reasonable statement to make based on THEIR scenarios, which are obviously failing badly.

Here is the 2007 emission map:



See how flat their year 2000 constant concentration, but in the 2013 map from the 2013 IPCC report shows that the true rate was clearly MUCH higher, but the rate of warming by Satellite temperature data barely changed at all, which means they are greatly overstating the warming projection a lot!

LINK for the 2013 map, or this URL:

Projections of Future Changes in Climate - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

The Satellite data shows well below the IPCC projected rate at .13C/decade rate. The IPCC projected rate of warming is well ABOVE the actual rate.

As usual you don't think it through.

Meanwhile you dishonestly overlook a nice list of GROWING Glaciers over many areas of the globe, which means you are trying hard to ignore contrary evidence.

 

[mamooth]

Quoting the next 2 decade rate is never the issue. The issue for policy and public planning would always require a five or 10 decade accurate prediction. Because of the ever decreasing rate estimates coming out since the circus came to town.

We've been over this before. Sensitivity estimates haven't been decreasing. To speed things up, let's pretend you posted your chart of dishonest cherrypicks and junk science, and then I pointed out it was dishonest cherrypicks and junk science, and then I supplied the links to the real science.

So quoting the RATE for just 20 years is not representative at all of the URGENCY of the problem. It's always been the shape of curve going out BEYOND that point that mattered. And in AR4, the awful scary teaser is still there for policy experts and the public and morons to mangle and misinterpret...

So nobody is allowed to quote the rate now because it will change in the far future, based on emission rates? Wow. That makes no sense at all. The sensible thing is to state the current rate, and then state it can go up or down based on emissions. Which is what the science does.

But thanks for pointing out how the original 1980s HYSTERIA that scared OldyRocks and mostly leftist Democrats around the world shitless has been debunked.

And off you go on an insane political rant. As one of my ongoing points is how denialism is just one of many required insane beliefs of the right-wing-kook extremist cult, I thank you again for proving that point.

 

[fncceo]

There are people on this thread that have been flap yapping about a cooling trend for many years. Yet, by every measure, we are warming, and doing so rapidly. One of the best measures of whether we are warming or cooling is glaciers. They reflect long term trends.

That’s nothing. Glacier Bay glacier in Alaska receded 60 miles in 70 years.

IN THE 19Th CENTURY.

They weren't riding carbon neutral horses.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Checking back in. Has Guam tipped over? Have we reached the tipping point?

 

[mamooth]

Here again from the 2007 IPCC:

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios."

And emissions were within an SRES scenario, so the prediction was 0.2C/decade. This isn't complicated.

That was the MINIMUM warming rate based on their SRES emission scenarios,

No, there was no "minimum warming rate." That was the warming rate based on one scenario, the "emissions hold at 2000 levels" scenario. As emissions didn't hold at that level, that 0.1C/decade rate is not relevant to anything.

while the .1C/decade you idiotically hang onto

What a bizarre claim, given that you're the one clinging to it, while I'm ignoring it completely.

despite that it isn't staying anywhere near the year 2000 emission rate at all,

Which would be why the correct estimate was 0.2C/decade.

OBVIOUSLY! which is why what I said that it was actually around the .30C/decade rate when you add the additional warming rate on top of the already stated .20C/decade rate based on the FIRST TWO decade SRES emission scenario.

So, you admit the IPCC never made such a 0.3C/decade prediction. _You_ fudged together that prediction, and then dishonesty attributed it to the IPCC.

The emission rate has been exceeding the SRES emission rate for a long while now.

No. Emissions were nearer the top of the range, but they were withing the range. Black bars are the emissions there, gray the individual scenarios, red the averages.

Recent trends in CO₂ emissions

Now the key text.
---
About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios".
---

As emissions were within the range, the IPCC prediction, made in very plain English, is 0.2C/decade. So long, thanks for playing.

Meanwhile you dishonestly overlook a nice list of GROWING Glaciers over many areas of the globe, which means you are trying hard to ignore contrary evidence.

I addressed it directly, post #22. And your chosen tactic was to ignore that response, and then say I didn't respond. Classy. Now, if you'd like to read more about your cherrypicking error there, here's a source for you to look at. But I don't think you will, being your cult frowns on such heresy.

Are glaciers growing or retreating?

 

[tycho1572]

There are people on this thread that have been flap yapping about a cooling trend for many years. Yet, by every measure, we are warming, and doing so rapidly. One of the best measures of whether we are warming or cooling is glaciers. They reflect long term trends.

Where can I send $ to save our glaciers?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are people on this thread that have been flap yapping about a cooling trend for many years. Yet, by every measure, we are warming, and doing so rapidly. One of the best measures of whether we are warming or cooling is glaciers. They reflect long term trends.

Where can I send $ to save our glaciers?

Soros

 

[Sunsettommy]

Quoting the next 2 decade rate is never the issue. The issue for policy and public planning would always require a five or 10 decade accurate prediction. Because of the ever decreasing rate estimates coming out since the circus came to town.

We've been over this before. Sensitivity estimates haven't been decreasing. To speed things up, let's pretend you posted your chart of dishonest cherrypicks and junk science, and then I pointed out it was dishonest cherrypicks and junk science, and then I supplied the links to the real science.

So quoting the RATE for just 20 years is not representative at all of the URGENCY of the problem. It's always been the shape of curve going out BEYOND that point that mattered. And in AR4, the awful scary teaser is still there for policy experts and the public and morons to mangle and misinterpret...

So nobody is allowed to quote the rate now because it will change in the far future, based on emission rates? Wow. That makes no sense at all. The sensible thing is to state the current rate, and then state it can go up or down based on emissions. Which is what the science does.

But thanks for pointing out how the original 1980s HYSTERIA that scared OldyRocks and mostly leftist Democrats around the world shitless has been debunked.

And off you go on an insane political rant. As one of my ongoing points is how denialism is just one of many required insane beliefs of the right-wing-kook extremist cult, I thank you again for proving that point.

There are MANY published science papers that specifically show LOW CO2 sensitivity, try calling these "cherry picking"

Smirnov, 2017 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C )

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.02°C)

Newell and Dopplick, 1979 (2X CO2 = ~.0.25°C )

Gates et al., 1981 (2X CO2 = 0.3°C)

Gray, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)

Holmes, 2018 (2XCO2 = -0.03°C)

Soon, Connolly, and Connolly, 2015 [full] (2X [400 ppm] CO2 = 0.44°C)

Many more in the LINK

 

[fncceo]

There are people on this thread that have been flap yapping about a cooling trend for many years. Yet, by every measure, we are warming, and doing so rapidly. One of the best measures of whether we are warming or cooling is glaciers. They reflect long term trends.

Where can I send $ to save our glaciers?

 

[mamooth]

There are MANY published science papers that specifically show LOW CO2 sensitivity, try calling these "cherry picking"

I don't need to do that. I just need to point out they're laughably wrong, since the observed sensitivity is >2.0C minimum.

But hey, let's look at some of your list.

Smirnov, 2017 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C )
Not a scientific paper.

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.02°C)
Not a scientific paper.

Newell and Dopplick, 1979 (2X CO2 = ~.0.25°C )
1979?

Gates et al., 1981 (2X CO2 = 0.3°C)
1981? Come on. The crazy claim here was that sensitivity estimates have been decreasing. You're showing that they're increasing.

Gray, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)
Not a scientific paper.

Holmes, 2018 (2XCO2 = -0.03°C)
Not a scientific paper.

Soon, Connolly, and Connolly, 2015 [full] (2X [400 ppm] CO2 = 0.44°C)
Well-paid fossil fuel shill WIlie Soon.

Many more in the LINK

And I'm sure they're all equally craptastic.Thanks for proving my point. We have real science, you have junk. Again, IPCC AR5, chapter 12. Hundreds of references there. Here's the summary..

 

[flacaltenn]

We've been over this before. Sensitivity estimates haven't been decreasing.

Nobody mention Climate Sensitivity in this thread. Are you lost? You've also lost that belief of belief SEVERAL times now. Because these numbers clearly HAVE nearly halved since the 1980s...

No sense responding to the rest of your shit flinging because you're not even close to the topic..

 

[flacaltenn]

There are MANY published science papers that specifically show LOW CO2 sensitivity, try calling these "cherry picking"

I don't need to do that. I just need to point out they're laughably wrong, since the observed sensitivity is >2.0C minimum.
But hey, let's look at some of your list.

Smirnov, 2017 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C )
Not a scientific paper.

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.02°C)
Not a scientific paper.

Newell and Dopplick, 1979 (2X CO2 = ~.0.25°C )
1979?

Gates et al., 1981 (2X CO2 = 0.3°C)
1981? Come on. The crazy claim here was that sensitivity estimates have been decreasing. You're showing that they're increasing.

Gray, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)
Not a scientific paper.

Holmes, 2018 (2XCO2 = -0.03°C)
Not a scientific paper.

Soon, Connolly, and Connolly, 2015 [full] (2X [400 ppm] CO2 = 0.44°C)
Well-paid fossil fuel shill WIlie Soon.

Many more in the LINK

And I'm sure they're all equally craptastic.Thanks for proving my point. We have real science, you have junk. Again, IPCC AR5, chapter 12. Hundreds of references there. Here's the summary..

This has NOTHING TO DO with the topic or what anyone said. You're off on your moronic windmill tilting again.

And those numbers in your chart ARE NOT A HISTORY of climate sensitivity estimates anyways. There's hardly even ONE STUDY in your charts that isnt from a meager 3 year period either side of 2010..

How about a 20 or 30 year history chart as I and Tommy have posted many times.. I don't think you even understand the assertion that CS #/s have more than halved since the circus began...