Impacts of Arctic thaw

[mamooth]

This little graphic is a good demonstration of Sunsettommy's fundamental failure. Let's see if it helps him understand. Probably not. Like so many deniers, he's very emotionally invested in failing to understand the basics, so he succeeds in failing admirably.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This little graphic is a good demonstration of Sunsettommy's fundamental failure. Let's see if it helps him understand. Probably not. Like so many deniers, he's very emotionally invested in failing to understand the basics, so he succeeds in failing admirably.

Gosh you are truly stupid since you haven't paid attention to what I said, which this "recovery" (YOUR WORD) which I never claimed at all, isn't what I am talking about.

Here is what I stated repeatedly:

"He is profoundly dishonest since it has stopped declining and currently higher than in August 23 2003."

"Even YOUR chart show the decline stopped in Fall 2009."

"You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart"

POST 39 showing TWO charts that says NO MORE DECLINE since 2007.

Never have I said recovery, my main contention is that DECLINE trend has stopped since 2007.

You are bad at this since YOU tried to put the word recovery into my mouth, you dishonest jackass!

 

[Manonthestreet]

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

 

[mamooth]

Gosh you are truly stupid since you haven't paid attention to what I said, which this "recovery" (YOUR WORD) which I never claimed at all, isn't what I am talking about.

Of course it is. You keep crowing about how the levels keep coming back to where they were -- that is, recovering. You show charts of how ice levels recovered to previous highs. You don't use the exact word, but you do use the tactic exclusively. That's why you're flailing so wildly now. Without that tactic, you have nothing, and you know it. Sucks to be you.

That particular fraudulent talking point of yours has run its course, I'm afraid. Do you have another one you can pull out of the conspiracy blog archives? Yes, we all know it will be fraudulent, but for you, it's not about convincing the normal people, it's about showing your political cult that you're willing to say anything on behalf of the cult. You used to really like that fabricated story about models being wrong. What happened to that one? Oh, that's right, I ripped it to shreds. Dang, I spoil everything.

 

[mamooth]

Poor Manonthestreet. He doesn't know what the mass budget means.

Hint: it's only snowfall vs. surface melt. It doesn't account for glacier calving, which has accelerated big time, why is why the Greenland mass loss is accelerating.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

 

[Billy_Bob]

Poor Manonthestreet. He doesn't know what the mass budget means.

Hint: it's only snowfall vs. surface melt. It doesn't account for glacier calving, which has accelerated big time, why is why the Greenland mass loss is accelerating.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Poor Snagletooth doesn't know what its talking about... ans calls others ignorant..... nice!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Gosh you are truly stupid since you haven't paid attention to what I said, which this "recovery" (YOUR WORD) which I never claimed at all, isn't what I am talking about.

Of course it is. You keep crowing about how the levels keep coming back to where they were -- that is, recovering. You show charts of how ice levels recovered to previous highs. You don't use the exact word, but you do use the tactic exclusively. That's why you're flailing so wildly now. Without that tactic, you have nothing, and you know it. Sucks to be you.

That particular fraudulent talking point of yours has run its course, I'm afraid. Do you have another one you can pull out of the conspiracy blog archives? Yes, we all know it will be fraudulent, but for you, it's not about convincing the normal people, it's about showing your political cult that you're willing to say anything on behalf of the cult. You used to really like that fabricated story about models being wrong. What happened to that one? Oh, that's right, I ripped it to shreds. Dang, I spoil everything.

You are indeed a stupid dishonest man.

I wrote the below to show that the decline stopped, that is all I stated, not once did I state it was going up trend wise.

"He is profoundly dishonest since it has stopped declining and currently higher than in August 23 2003."

"Even YOUR chart show the decline stopped in Fall 2009."

"You have TERRIBLE eyes since it is OBVIOUS that the decline stopped in 2009, as shown in the EXPANDED version of your chart"

POST 39 showing TWO charts that says NO MORE DECLINE since 2007."

Over and over I make clear the DECLINE has stopped. Never say it is going back up, never said it is recovering back to the level of 1980, 1990 or even 2000.

You are a liar as well since you IGNORED post 28 evidence from your own chart, that the decline stopped, which was made clear by writing this:

"It is obvious that currently 2018 is higher than 2010" which clearly means no more decline.

It stopped in 2007 or 2009, depending on what dataset is used, but the obvious remains..... not currently declining and hasn't for about a decade now, but no upward trend seen or declared either.

Even the FIRST chart I posted was only to August 23, with another 3 weeks of decline to go, meaning that 2018 might reach a low slightly higher than 2003, which is a description of an over all flat trend in 15 years for that chart.

Which means the decline has stopped (which you can't dispute) I never said it was going up and up into the future at any time, so stop LYING!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Poor Manonthestreet. He doesn't know what the mass budget means.

Hint: it's only snowfall vs. surface melt. It doesn't account for glacier calving, which has accelerated big time, why is why the Greenland mass loss is accelerating.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Here is another dishonest comment mamooth made since he doesn't want anyone to see this from the link he didn't read:

"Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."

That was over a TEN year period, but this putz thinks 200 GT/yr loss is a lot when it is actually less than .01% of the total mass.



Meanwhile several published papers show that 4-10,000 years ago, Greenland was 3-5C warmer with significant mass loss. Then it cooled down and regained mass to its highest level of the past 8,000 years.

All during the time magic molecule was around 240-260 ppm, Polar Bears survived and the world stayed intact.

Face it fella, Greenland is in no danger of losing much simply because it is cooler and 2/3 of the region average BELOW freezing year around.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A big ol nonpartisan wave. That's one impact. lol.

 

[mamooth]

You are indeed a stupid dishonest man.

Your claims that ice levels aren't decreasing -- that is, recovering from every dip -- are nonsense. Everything your cult tells you is nonsense. That's not my fault, so you're raging at the wrong person. The ones who fed you the garbage, they're the ones you should be going after. I'm just the messenger, telling you that you've been scammed.

Alas, you won't. Real science is hard. It takes endless effort and time, and the more you learn, the more you find out you don't know. There's no emotional payoff there. As part of the feelings-based crowd, you want a big emotional payoff for zero effort. Your cult gives that to you, telling you how you're a special snowflake patriot hero who obviously knows more than all those durn liberal egghead scientists. That kind of emotional lure is irresistible to weak minds.

That was over a TEN year period, but this putz thinks 200 GT/yr loss is a lot when it is actually less than .01% of the total mass.

Interesting deflection. Has nothing to do with anything I said, but I guess you're just upset. In any case, let's address how you failed.

First, that's crapload of ice. It's currently responsible for about 25% of sea level rise.

Second, it's a major understatement. Current rates are more like 370.

Third, it's accelerating.

Meanwhile several published papers show that 4-10,000 years ago, Greenland was 3-5C warmer with significant mass loss. Then it cooled down and regained mass to its highest level of the past 8,000 years.

And? Was there some point to bringing that up, other than that you're using the "Climate has changed naturally in the past, so humans can't change climate" fallacy? Natural cycles should be cooling Greenland now, but instead Greenland is melting, so we know humans are the cause.

All during the time magic molecule was around 240-260 ppm, Polar Bears survived and the world stayed intact.

Now you're going with alarmism about the world ending and polar bears dying? I guess you have to deflect from the science somehow.

Face it fella, Greenland is in no danger of losing much simply because it is cooler and 2/3 of the region average BELOW freezing year around.

Fourth-graders learn how glaciers work. You're inferior to them in knowledge. Think about that. Your cult has trained you to be an idiot.

 

[skookerasbil]

You are indeed a stupid dishonest man.

Your claims that ice levels aren't decreasing -- that is, recovering from every dip -- are nonsense. Everything your cult tells you is nonsense. That's not my fault, so you're raging at the wrong person. The ones who fed you the garbage, they're the ones you should be going after. I'm just the messenger, telling you that you've been scammed.

Alas, you won't. Real science is hard. It takes endless effort and time, and the more you learn, the more you find out you don't know. There's no emotional payoff there. As part of the feelings-based crowd, you want a big emotional payoff for zero effort. Your cult gives that to you, telling you how you're a special snowflake patriot hero who obviously knows more than all those durn liberal egghead scientists. That kind of emotional lure is irresistible to weak minds.

That was over a TEN year period, but this putz thinks 200 GT/yr loss is a lot when it is actually less than .01% of the total mass.

Interesting deflection. Has nothing to do with anything I said, but I guess you're just upset. In any case, let's address how you failed.

First, that's crapload of ice. It's currently responsible for about 25% of sea level rise.

Second, it's a major understatement. Current rates are more like 370.

Third, it's accelerating.

Meanwhile several published papers show that 4-10,000 years ago, Greenland was 3-5C warmer with significant mass loss. Then it cooled down and regained mass to its highest level of the past 8,000 years.

And? Was there some point to bringing that up, other than that you're using the "Climate has changed naturally in the past, so humans can't change climate" fallacy? Natural cycles should be cooling Greenland now, but instead Greenland is melting, so we know humans are the cause.

All during the time magic molecule was around 240-260 ppm, Polar Bears survived and the world stayed intact.

Now you're going with alarmism about the world ending and polar bears dying? I guess you have to deflect from the science somehow.

Face it fella, Greenland is in no danger of losing much simply because it is cooler and 2/3 of the region average BELOW freezing year around.

Fourth-graders learn how glaciers work. You're inferior to them in knowledge. Think about that. Your cult has trained you to be an idiot.

Nobody knows if humans are the cause.

By the way....what's up with the consistently ghey presentation? Is that intentional? Have you ever been engaged in anything competitive in your life?

 

[Old Rocks]

We know 100% now that humans are the cause of the present warming. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science and every major University has policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Only the very and willfully ignorant can say that no one knows if humans are the cause.