Global warming in action....right before our eyes

[Old Rocks]

I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.

What crap? The thousands of so called scientist you speak of read the same God damn report and just sign there name..

Oops I let out a little secret didn't I?

Are you ever proving what an ignorant dumb fuck you are. No, they do not 'sign' a report. Their name is only on a paper if they contributed to that paper. And there are thousands of papers from all disciplines of science showing the effects of the increasing warmth on this planet, papers published in the scientific journals in all nations of the world. Lying bastards like you are a dime a dozen, you mean absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things. Little braying jackasses serenading the moon.

You obviously are not even capable of finishing the basic classes that you are required to finish to get a degree in science. All you can do is try to denigrate your superoures.

Who you trying to bullshit ?


Top science groups tell climate change doubters in Congress to knock it off

In a letter dated Tuesday, 31 leading U.S. scientific organizations sent members of Congress a no-nonsense message that human-caused climate change is real, poses risks to society and is backed by overwhelming evidence.

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” the letter states. “This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

The effort to draft the letter wasspearheaded by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), whose leader, Rush Holt — a former member of Congress, vigorously promoted its message...

That is not a scientific paper, you daft idiot, that is an advisory letter from scientists concerning policy. And a wise one. Unfortunately we have to many really stupid people in Congress for it to have any effect.

So you hiding out in a cave in Idaho is a wise one?

Not at all, although I like Idaho enough that would not be a bad thing. However, again, after September, I will be dividing my time between a steel mill and Portland State University. Studying for a degree in a scientific discipline.

 

[Old Rocks]

The cascade mountains are an area that I see often. And, yes, the warming is very apparent to anyone that has seen these glaciers over a period of 50 years.

Global glacier retreat

Milk Lake Glacier in 1988 clinging to the slopes above the greenish lake.

Milk Lake in 2009, the glacier now entirely gone

.
What has research proven?

We have measured the mass balance on ten glaciers in the North Cascades each year since 1984. The cumulative mass loss has been substantial. Annual mass balance is the most sensitive annual glacier climate indicator. North Cascade glaciers annual balance has averaged -0.51 m/a of water equivalent from 1984-2010 a cumulative loss of over 13.25m in glacier thickness. This represents a net loss of ice thickness exceeding 14 m or 20-40 % of their total volume since 1984 due to negative mass balances. The trend in mass balance is becoming more negative which is fueling more glacier retreat and thinning note figure at right. The map at right indicates the location of the glaciers (green circles) where we monitor annual glacier mass balance.

The annual glacier mass balance record below indicates that the response of annual balance is quite similar for each glacier. This demonstrates that it is regional climate changes from year to year that control glacier mass balance, not local microclimates. The cause of the negative mass balances has primarily been temperature rise. Precipitation has increased during the last 25 years. However, snowpack has not indicating more winter rain and melt events.

The data indicate broad regional continuity in glacial response to climate. Cross correlation values of annual balance between glaciers ranged from 0.73 to 0.98. The record reflects less variability and a more negative trend from 1984-1995. Since 1996, there has been increasing inter-annual variability with alternately extreme positive and negative years, with a dominantly negative trend. The annual balance of individual glacier is in a Table below The chart at right shows the annual balance of each glacier and how they are closely correlated, following the same trend from year to year, but do have a significant range in annual balance during each given year.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, since where I live is right there in every post, perhaps you should retake the third grade. And, yes, I have been in all the mountain ranges in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. But not often as I would like, and never for as long as I would like.

 

[Dale Smith]

Well, since where I live is right there in every post, perhaps you should retake the third grade. And, yes, I have been in all the mountain ranges in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. But not often as I would like, and never for as long as I would like.

Here is your "global warming" cause........educate yourself. NOAA and the NWC are under gag orders not to talk about this.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL

 

[LaDexter]

LOL indeed.

Individual glaciers come and go. The one with 90% of Earth ice is still coming in to the tune of at least 80 billion tons of ice every year, or about 50,000 times the ice that melted on top of that rathole...

 

[jc456]

Secrete?

You know nothing about the work of scientists, but since we're talking about scientists of many sorts from almost every nation on the planet, there's not really a damned thing you can tell about them in the way of generalization. The Grand Global Conspiracy is as stupid and irrational as it ever was.

Where is your scientific data? Where is your evidence?

Where is your scientific data? Where is your evidence?

Well for me, it is the lack of evidence from those making the ridiculous claims about CO2 that is my evidence. It implies made uppy stuffy.

 

[jc456]

I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.

What crap? The thousands of so called scientist you speak of read the same God damn report and just sign there name..

Oops I let out a little secret didn't I?

The thousands of scientists I'm speaking about do their own research, get it published in peer reviewed journals. An enormous majority of their results - very close to 100% - support the theory of AGW. They read the research of others. They read the IPCC's assessment report which is an assessment of all that research. Being trained, degreed scientists, they understand the research. Their conclusions, almost to a man, is that, yes indeed, the primary cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation.

I'm glad to hear you say "What crap". You couldn't find ANY research material to support your claims, could you.

All you've let out is another indicator of your subnormal intelligence. The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.

All you've let out is another indicator of your subnormal intelligence. The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.

You mean not all scientist agree with AGW? whooooooa. why not? I thought it was just message board skeptics that did that. Now you're saying that there indeed scientist who don't fall into line? hmmmmmmm

 

[Crick]

Approximately 1 percent of them. Likely less than that these days. The trend is approaching a statistical zero.

Is that really where you think you ought to be? You've seen the sorts of people that make up that 1%. Many are retired geriatric cases. Many have been outsiders and contrarians all their lives. Many have significant financial reasons to make the arguments they're making. Overall, they are not an impressive lot. You certainly couldn't argue that they are demonstrably the more intelligent segment of the body of the world's scientists.

 

[jc456]

Approximately 1 percent of them. Likely less than that these days. The trend is approaching a statistical zero.

Is that really where you think you ought to be? You've seen the sorts of people that make up that 1%. Many are retired geriatric cases. Many have been outsiders and contrarians all their lives. Many have significant financial reasons to make the arguments they're making. Overall, they are not an impressive lot. You certainly couldn't argue that they are demonstrably the more intelligent segment of the body of the world's scientists.

Well than post that link

 

[Crick]

I'm doing you a favor even reading your crap jc. Don't push your luck.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm doing you a favor even reading your crap jc. Don't push your luck.

Telling, right there.

 

[Crick]

Have you attempted any substantial debates with poster jc456? I have had the man on ignore for some time now. The only reason I even open his posts is that the "usual crowd" of deniers seems to have petered out and wandered off somewhere. I sit here waiting for someone to post and eventually get sufficiently frustrated to open an ignored post (jc is not the only one I ignore) and think about responding to it.

How about you? Do you believe any symptoms of global warming are easily discernible in the present day?

 

[SSDD]

The issue isn't whether the climate is warming or cooling or static...no one doubts that the climate changes...the issue is whether man is the cause and you have already demonstrated in spectacular fashion that there simply is no real evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate.

 

[Crick]

How do you believe I have so demonstrated? By repeatedly citing WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, for which you're only repartee has been "It's all lies?.

 

[SSDD]

How do you believe I have so demonstrated? By repeatedly citing WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, for which you're only repartee has been "It's all lies?.

Funny how there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to be seen in any of what you have cited.....all models all the time...models which consistently fail by the way....you are entertaining...I'll give you that...and I do believe you actually believe that you have provided such evidence...it goes a long way towards explaining how you came to be duped so thoroughly....you clearly wouldn't recognize actual observed, measured, quantified evidence if it bit a big old piece right out of your ass.

Physical basis without the first bit of physical evidence...what a laugh...typical of climate pseudoscience though....

 

[Crick]

As so many times before, you are demonstrably incorrect.

 

[Papageorgio]

Have you attempted any substantial debates with poster jc456? I have had the man on ignore for some time now. The only reason I even open his posts is that the "usual crowd" of deniers seems to have petered out and wandered off somewhere. I sit here waiting for someone to post and eventually get sufficiently frustrated to open an ignored post (jc is not the only one I ignore) and think about responding to it.

How about you? Do you believe any symptoms of global warming are easily discernible in the present day?

Ignore? I don't use it, I find a variety of opinions interesting and educational. Climate change has been going on since the formation of the earth. I don't get to excited about it. Some guy yesterday said we passed the tipping point on Climate Change and the planet could only support life for 100-150 more years. This type of wild speculation has been going on since the 70's and none of it has come to fruition yet. Maybe I need to give it time.

What I find really interesting is that those that believe in Global Warming now Climate Change go absolutely nuts if you don't agree with them. I wonder where that regressive attitude comes from?

To have someone on ignore and then open their posts seems pretty strange to me. You really aren't ignoring him are you?

 

[LaDexter]

What I find really interesting is that those that believe in Global Warming now Climate Change go absolutely nuts if you don't agree with them. I wonder where that regressive attitude comes from?

It really borders on the level you get when you question the Bible to a die hard with a 40 IQ...

 

[jc456]

I'm doing you a favor even reading your crap jc. Don't push your luck.

or what?