Greenland ice melt worse than previously believed

[Redfish]

Oi vey.

I did. Apparently you read absolutely nothing I posted.

Good god. Sea level rise is not latitude-dependent. People all over the planet will have to be relocated. Here is what matters regarding sea level rise.

View attachment 1000685

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-population-in-billions-in-2020-by-a-distance-from-the-coast-and-b-elevation_fig2_367637643

960 million people live within 10 kilometers of the ocean and 900 million live within 10 meter of mean sea level.

It's New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo.

What do you actually mean when you say it is a myth? This is not the tale of Apollo and Cassandra. It is reported by years of records from thousands of sources all over the planet. And since the 1980s, by continuous records from satellite altimetry data. Why would you choose to reject that information?

I added another question to my previous post that you didn't address but might not have seen. Due to the wording of this thread's title, I have to ask you, the OP, if you believe that global warming is an act of God.

your great prophet, algore the magnificent, said that by now all of Florida and most of the east coast would be under water. Is it? Was he lying or just stupid?

 

[EMH]

your great prophet, algore the magnificent, said that by now all of Florida and most of the east coast would be under water. Is it? Was he lying or just stupid?

crock claims to live in FLA but had never ever heard of the term "Canes" before...


Then "Dudmuck" had the same issue. Both live in Israel and use the same flawed Hebrew to English translation software that failed to ID the word "canes" properly. You will see it in his posts, his "English" is awful.

 

[Crick]

your great prophet, algore the magnificent, said that by now all of Florida and most of the east coast would be under water. Is it? Was he lying or just stupid?

Is Al Gore a climate scientist? No. Then why would I care what he said?

 

[EMH]

Is Al Gore a climate scientist? No. Then why would I care what he said?

What about what a British Court said about his movie in 2007??

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[Crick]

What about what a British Court said about his movie in 2007??

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"

An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[EMH]

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"

An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After being bullied and threatened to say that....

 

[Redfish]

Is Al Gore a climate scientist? No. Then why would I care what he said?

Because he started the cult that you subscribe to.

 

[Crick]

Because he started the cult that you subscribe to.

He made a movie that drew a lot of public attention to the subject and I and many others are grateful to him for doing so. Mainstream science already knew what was happening. That was what Gore's film was based on. Science now knows even better what is happening. If I belong to a cult, it is the cult of science. You seem to belong to a cult. The cult of politicized anti-science.

 

[Redfish]

He made a movie that drew a lot of public attention to the subject and I and many others are grateful to him for doing so. Mainstream science already knew what was happening. That was what Gore's film was based on. Science now knows even better what is happening. If I belong to a cult, it is the cult of science. You seem to belong to a cult. The cult of politicized anti-science.

then give us proof that the actions of humans have directly caused the climate of earth to change. not that humans have polluted the air and water but that that pollution has directly caused the climate to warm or cool. The cultists are you who buy into the BS that
WE mere humans can stop, reverse or delay changes to earth's climate which are actually caused by activity of the sun, changes in ocean currents and slights wobbles as earth spins on its axis.

Then you can tell us why you climate cultists refuse to attack pollution which is the real problem facing future generations of humanity.

 

[jc456]

Could be. Main had fishing shacks 150 years old taken out by the high tide last week.

never had a high tide before? odd.

 

[jc456]

He made a movie that drew a lot of public attention to the subject and I and many others are grateful to him for doing so. Mainstream science already knew what was happening. That was what Gore's film was based on. Science now knows even better what is happening. If I belong to a cult, it is the cult of science. You seem to belong to a cult. The cult of politicized anti-science.

the subject is how did ice get on Greenland in the first place. I'm still waiting for your answer.

 

[Crick]

He [Gore] made a movie ["An Inconvenient Truth"] that drew a lot of public attention to the subject and I and many others are grateful to him for doing so. Mainstream science already knew what was happening. That was what Gore's film was based on. Science now knows even better what is happening. If I belong to a cult, it is the cult of science. You seem to belong to a cult. The cult of politicized anti-science.

then give us proof that the actions of humans have directly caused the climate of earth to change. not that humans have polluted the air and water but that that pollution has directly caused the climate to warm or cool.

There are no proofs in the natural sciences, there is evidence. The evidence in this case is that CO2, a known, powerful, greenhouse gas, has increased 50% since the Industrial Revolution and both simple bookkeeping calculations based on the amount of fossil fuel we have burned and how much CO2 that would produce AND isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere, indicate that virtually every molecule of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial value was created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

The cultists are you who buy into the BS that WE mere humans can stop, reverse or delay changes to earth's climate which are actually caused by activity of the sun, changes in ocean currents and slights wobbles as earth spins on its axis.

The activity of the sun, the ocean's currents and the slight wobbles of the Earth as it spins are all known and closely monitored and NONE of them are responsible for the warming we've been experiencing since the Industrial Revolution. Changes in total solar irradiation have simply not been of sufficient magnitude or even moving in the proper direction to have caused the observed warming. Ocean currents are changing but it is not the cause but the RESULT of the warming we've experienced and the enormous amounts of fresh meltwater that warming has put into the polar oceans. The wobbles of the Earth as it spins, known as the Malankovitch cycles, are well understood and predictable for hundreds of thousands of years. They are held responsible for the glacial-interglacial cycles the Earth has been going through within the Quaternary Ice Age. They are not responsible for the current warming. The cycles are, in fact, currently pushing the planet to cool off.

Then you can tell us why you climate cultists refuse to attack pollution which is the real problem facing future generations of humanity.

When has anyone refused to attack pollution? Do you think eliminating the burning of fossil fuels won't reduce pollution? It seems common for AGW deniers to invoke a false dichotomy. Humans can work on pollution and global warming at the same time, PARTICULARLY since they share a number of solutions.

 

[EMH]

for the warming

outside of the surface of growing urban areas, the Co2 FRAUD has NO real warming at all, just fudge.

The wobbles of the Earth as it spins, known as the Malankovitch cycles, are well understood and predictable for hundreds of thousands of years

Milankovich aka McBullshit is easily destroyed on both poles...

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com

Milankovich was cooked up after homO's 2 years of silence to "blunt the truth" that


GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED


which proves atmosphere, including co2 in the atmosphere, is not the cause of Earth climate change....

the Quaternary Ice Age

The Co2 FRAUD does not define "ice age" correctly, because if it did, it would out itself as the FRAUD it always was...

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Redfish]

There are no proofs in the natural sciences, there is evidence. The evidence in this case is that CO2, a known, powerful, greenhouse gas, has increased 50% since the Industrial Revolution and both simple bookkeeping calculations based on the amount of fossil fuel we have burned and how much CO2 that would produce AND isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere, indicate that virtually every molecule of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial value was created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

The activity of the sun, the ocean's currents and the slight wobbles of the Earth as it spins are all known and closely monitored and NONE of them are responsible for the warming we've been experiencing since the Industrial Revolution. Changes in total solar irradiation have simply not been of sufficient magnitude or even moving in the proper direction to have caused the observed warming. Ocean currents are changing but it is not the cause but the RESULT of the warming we've experienced and the enormous amounts of fresh meltwater that warming has put into the polar oceans. The wobbles of the Earth as it spins, known as the Malankovitch cycles, are well understood and predictable for hundreds of thousands of years. They are held responsible for the glacial-interglacial cycles the Earth has been going through within the Quaternary Ice Age. They are not responsible for the current warming. The cycles are, in fact, currently pushing the planet to cool off.


When has anyone refused to attack pollution? Do you think eliminating the burning of fossil fuels won't reduce pollution? It seems common for AGW deniers to invoke a false dichotomy. Humans can work on pollution and global warming at the same time, PARTICULARLY since they share a number of solutions.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, it was at that same level 50,000 years ago. Without CO2 there could be no life on earth, it is not a pollutant.

 

[Crick]

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, it was at that same level 50,000 years ago. Without CO2 there could be no life on earth, it is not a pollutant.

That is incorrect.

CO2 currently makes up 0.042% of the atmosphere. Up until humans began pumping it into the air with the Industrial Revolution, it had not exceeded 0.030% of the atmosphere for 3 to 5 million years.

"In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era."​

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

 

[jc456]

That is incorrect.

CO2 currently makes up 0.042% of the atmosphere. Up until humans began pumping it into the air with the Industrial Revolution, it had not exceeded 0.030% of the atmosphere for 3 to 5 million years.

"In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era."​

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

you keep posting this disinformation, the fact is that the atmosphere had more than .042 before. When no humans were here. Your argument is garbage at that point!!!! It shows without humans that level was reached. You're becoming boring. repeating and repeating the same disinformation is so demofkish.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Things like: atmospheric CO2 levels, global temperature, ocean heat content, sea level, ice mass balance at the poles, Greenland and the world's glaciers. Where President Obama lives doesn't mean Jack Shit. That you think it does tells me there's a good chance you're a right wing bigot.

There it is. If you don’t subscribe to the climate change (used to be global warming) dogma you’re racist and a bigot. There primitive defects don’t even hide it

 

[Slyhunter]

Maybe someday Greenland will be green again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much “excess heat” is generated by increasing CO2 from .039% to .042%?

What does the lab work show?

 

[Redfish]

How much “excess heat” is generated by increasing CO2 from .039% to .042%?

What does the lab work show?

next ask him how much new plant life that tiny CO2 increase has created.