The best argument against global warming

[SpidermanTuba]

Have you seen the emails, Spiderman?

I will go ahead and take that as an "I don't know. Nor do I have any friggin clue what's going on. But some people told me some stolen emails were really damning"

 

[Sodafin]

Nice bluster, but I responded to the author's assertion that they were "tiny errors", and not an example--however isolated--of politicized science. They were deliberate, not errors. He downplayed that, but I don't like when science gets twisted for policy goals.

Try again, Tuba.

The thing Conspiray Theorists always seem to overlook here is that the email scandal never mentioned or even referred to 99% of the research.

I agree one or two scientists made poor - and probably political - decisions; but that no more impacts on what we know about climate scientist any more than finding a dodgy doctor somewhere impacts on our knowledge of medicine.

 

[Sheldon]

Nice bluster, but I responded to the author's assertion that they were "tiny errors", and not an example--however isolated--of politicized science. They were deliberate, not errors. He downplayed that, but I don't like when science gets twisted for policy goals.

Try again, Tuba.

The thing Conspiray Theorists always seem to overlook here is that the email scandal never mentioned or even referred to 99% of the research.

I agree one or two scientists made poor - and probably political - decisions; but that no more impacts on what we know about climate scientist any more than finding a dodgy doctor somewhere impacts on our knowledge of medicine.

Yeah, I think that point was made in my first post in this thread. It's probably a tl;dr, but whatever. This is turning into the typical "with us or against us" debate, and the emails are a red herring since they're largely irrelevant to the data, but represent a dishonesty with the science that has never sat well with me. That does not a conspiracy theoriest make me.

 

[gslack]

Deniers don't like the idea of climate change, they don't believe it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don't like the implications of climate change, they don't like the things we might have to do to address it, or they just don't like government or science. But they have no alternative scientific explanation that works.

Read more: City Brights: Peter Gleick : The best argument against global warming

Uh-huh.... And the scientific opinion of global warming goes on despite there being no evidence of devastating warming.... And you guys like science? HAHAHAHA!

 

[gslack]

Nice bluster, but I responded to the author's assertion that they were "tiny errors", and not an example--however isolated--of politicized science. They were deliberate, not errors. He downplayed that, but I don't like when science gets twisted for policy goals.

Try again, Tuba.

The thing Conspiray Theorists always seem to overlook here is that the email scandal never mentioned or even referred to 99% of the research.

I agree one or two scientists made poor - and probably political - decisions; but that no more impacts on what we know about climate scientist any more than finding a dodgy doctor somewhere impacts on our knowledge of medicine.

One or two? LOL, the CRU has a lot more than 1 or 2 and those 1 or 2 sell the info and data to the other thousand.... Lets be honest about the scope here...

 

[Sodafin]

Gslack -

There not being proof, and you not having read the proof, are two different things.

Again, we know for a simple and undisputed fact that:

- 95% of all glaciers worldwide are in retreat, with the pace of retrreat having sped up since 1950

- that ocean PH levels are changing

- that arctic sea ice is thinning every year

- that the western antarctic ice shelf is collapsing

- that global mean temperatures are rising

- that ocean levels are rising

- that countries like Spain and Australia are experiencing unprecedented drought.

I can post a range of links for every one of those, but let's save time and say that if there is any of these points you are genuinely intersted in - ask, and I'll present the proof.

Silky -

Yeah, I agree. These guys should certainly be fired, if not face charges for what they did.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

There not being proof, and you not having read the proof, are two different things.

Again, we know for a simple and undisputed fact that:

1.- 95% of all glaciers worldwide are in retreat, with the pace of retrreat having sped up since 1950

2.- that ocean PH levels are changing

3.- that arctic sea ice is thinning every year

4.- that the western antarctic ice shelf is collapsing

5.- that global mean temperatures are rising

6.- that ocean levels are rising

7.- that countries like Spain and Australia are experiencing unprecedented drought.

I can post a range of links for every one of those, but let's save time and say that if there is any of these points you are genuinely intersted in - ask, and I'll present the proof.

Silky -

Yeah, I agree. These guys should certainly be fired, if not face charges for what they did.

1. BS and thats the reality. one will shrink and another will grow and it changes all the time..

2. Again BS there is no real evidence to support that beyond speculation..

3. More BS that is shown again and again to be either completely false or variable year to year.

4. More nonsense some parts collapsed while some expanded. During the whole last half of the 90's the antarctic ice was expanding overall.

5. more speculative nonsense that has been shown to be variable year to year..

6. Complete fabrication in reality there has been no real discernible rise in sea level recently to match the claims of the IPCC and Al Gore.

7. and those countries were always dry in the first place. them having a drought is a normal occurrence.

Well please present your evidence on any you see fit and I will present evidence to oppose them... Won't change anything. Too many people base their reasoning on party line and not enough on common sense or reality. As long as they do that all evidence will be suspect...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Deniers don't like the idea of climate change, they don't believe it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don't like the implications of climate change, they don't like the things we might have to do to address it, or they just don't like government or science. But they have no alternative scientific explanation that works.

Read more: City Brights: Peter Gleick : The best argument against global warming

Uh-huh.... And the scientific opinion of global warming goes on despite there being no evidence of devastating warming.... And you guys like science? HAHAHAHA!

"I declare there is no evidence - so there is none" - gslack

So refreshing to see someone make an actual scientific argument.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Nice bluster, but I responded to the author's assertion that they were "tiny errors", and not an example--however isolated--of politicized science. They were deliberate, not errors. He downplayed that, but I don't like when science gets twisted for policy goals.

Try again, Tuba.

The thing Conspiray Theorists always seem to overlook here is that the email scandal never mentioned or even referred to 99% of the research.

I agree one or two scientists made poor - and probably political - decisions; but that no more impacts on what we know about climate scientist any more than finding a dodgy doctor somewhere impacts on our knowledge of medicine.

One or two? LOL, the CRU has a lot more than 1 or 2 and those 1 or 2 sell the info and data to the other thousand.... Lets be honest about the scope here...

What are you even talking about? The CRU doesn't sell data. You have no clue, do you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

1. Bs and thats the reality.

because gslack declares it so
!!!

 

[Sodafin]

1. BS and thats the reality. one will shrink and another will grow and it changes all the time..

2. Again BS there is no real evidence to support that beyond speculation..

3. More BS that is shown again and again to be either completely false or variable year to year.

4. More nonsense some parts collapsed while some expanded. During the whole last half of the 90's the antarctic ice was expanding overall.

5. more speculative nonsense that has been shown to be variable year to year..

6. Complete fabrication in reality there has been no real discernible rise in sea level recently to match the claims of the IPCC and Al Gore.

7. and those countries were always dry in the first place. them having a drought is a normal occurrence.

Staggering, absolutely staggering. If anyone is looking for a good example of closed minded ignorance, I think they have found it.

Gslack, you could spend 5 minute on google and prove yourself wrong about anyone of those points. We both know you won't.

 

[gslack]

The thing Conspiray Theorists always seem to overlook here is that the email scandal never mentioned or even referred to 99% of the research.

I agree one or two scientists made poor - and probably political - decisions; but that no more impacts on what we know about climate scientist any more than finding a dodgy doctor somewhere impacts on our knowledge of medicine.

One or two? LOL, the CRU has a lot more than 1 or 2 and those 1 or 2 sell the info and data to the other thousand.... Lets be honest about the scope here...

What are you even talking about? The CRU doesn't sell data. You have no clue, do you?

3 posts of you screaming I am wrong? Seriously? 3 posts?

You want to play the mindless semantics over what I meant by "sell" now ?

HAHHAHHAAHA! all you did was show the BS I was talking about... YOU are one of the mindless ditto heads who believes whatever your party tells you...

now want to act like an adult this time or show your immaturity some more by spamming?

 

[Sodafin]

In the interests of fiar play, here is a link to what is happening with Alaskan glaciers, in what has been a massive research program taking place over the past few decades.

Rapid Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level

Anthony A. Arendt, Keith A. Echelmeyer, William D. Harrison, Craig S. Lingle, Virginia B. Valentine

We have used airborne laser altimetry to estimate volume changes of 67 glaciers in Alaska from the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s. The average rate of thickness change of these glaciers was -0.52 m/year. Extrapolation to all glaciers in Alaska yields an estimated total annual volume change of -52 ± 15 km3/year (water equivalent), equivalent to a rise in sea level (SLE) of 0.14 ± 0.04 mm/year. Repeat measurements of 28 glaciers from the mid-1990s to 2000-2001 suggest an increased average rate of thinning, -1.8 m/year. This leads to an extrapolated annual volume loss from Alaska glaciers equal to -96 ± 35 km3/year, or 0.27 ± 0.10 mm/year SLE, during the past decade. These recent losses are nearly double the estimated annual loss from the entire Greenland Ice Sheet during the same time period and are much higher than previously published loss estimates for Alaska glaciers. They form the largest glaciological contribution to rising sea level yet measured.

Rapid Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level -- Arendt et al. 297 (5580): 382 -- Science

The entire piece is easily available online. i challenge gslack to read it and come back to us with his conclusions.

 

[gslack]

1. BS and thats the reality. one will shrink and another will grow and it changes all the time..

2. Again BS there is no real evidence to support that beyond speculation..

3. More BS that is shown again and again to be either completely false or variable year to year.

4. More nonsense some parts collapsed while some expanded. During the whole last half of the 90's the antarctic ice was expanding overall.

5. more speculative nonsense that has been shown to be variable year to year..

6. Complete fabrication in reality there has been no real discernible rise in sea level recently to match the claims of the IPCC and Al Gore.

7. and those countries were always dry in the first place. them having a drought is a normal occurrence.

Staggering, absolutely staggering. If anyone is looking for a good example of closed minded ignorance, I think they have found it.

Gslack, you could spend 5 minute on google and prove yourself wrong about anyone of those points. We both know you won't.

So you aren't going to post all those links you talked about then? LOL, classic.... So we can safely say in fact you are the one who is close-minded and ignorant. YOU beleive whatever they tell you to believe as long as it has the liberal democrat seal on it.....

Once again please post the evidence...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

One or two? LOL, the CRU has a lot more than 1 or 2 and those 1 or 2 sell the info and data to the other thousand.... Lets be honest about the scope here...

What are you even talking about? The CRU doesn't sell data. You have no clue, do you?

3 posts of you screaming I am wrong? Seriously? 3 posts?

You want to play the mindless semantics over what I meant by "sell" now ?

HAHHAHHAAHA! all you did was show the BS I was talking about... YOU are one of the mindless ditto heads who believes whatever your party tells you...

now want to act like an adult this time or show your immaturity some more by spamming?

The weren't "selling" data under any definition of the word. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

1. BS and thats the reality. one will shrink and another will grow and it changes all the time..

2. Again BS there is no real evidence to support that beyond speculation..

3. More BS that is shown again and again to be either completely false or variable year to year.

4. More nonsense some parts collapsed while some expanded. During the whole last half of the 90's the antarctic ice was expanding overall.

5. more speculative nonsense that has been shown to be variable year to year..

What I have learned from gslack is that the bread and butter of scientific debating is simply to declare your opponents arguing points to be BS and nonsense, and then you win.

Is that roughly how it works?

 

[Sodafin]

So you aren't going to post all those links you talked about then? LOL, classic.... So we can safely say in fact you are the one who is close-minded and ignorant. YOU beleive whatever they tell you to believe as long as it has the liberal democrat seal on it.....

Once again please post the evidence...

The first one has been posted - so y the time you've had a chance to take a look at it, we can establish some facts about glaciers, and then mone one by one through the other points.

I have another half dozen links to the Alaska glacier studies conducted by Arendt's team - let me know if you want more.

This one covers methodology: Alaskan Glacier Laser Altimetry

and this one an overview of Dr Arendt - http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~arendta/cv.html

 

[gslack]

In the interests of fiar play, here is a link to what is happening with Alaskan glaciers, in what has been a massive research program taking place over the past few decades.

Rapid Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level

Anthony A. Arendt, Keith A. Echelmeyer, William D. Harrison, Craig S. Lingle, Virginia B. Valentine

We have used airborne laser altimetry to estimate volume changes of 67 glaciers in Alaska from the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s. The average rate of thickness change of these glaciers was -0.52 m/year. Extrapolation to all glaciers in Alaska yields an estimated total annual volume change of -52 ± 15 km3/year (water equivalent), equivalent to a rise in sea level (SLE) of 0.14 ± 0.04 mm/year. Repeat measurements of 28 glaciers from the mid-1990s to 2000-2001 suggest an increased average rate of thinning, -1.8 m/year. This leads to an extrapolated annual volume loss from Alaska glaciers equal to -96 ± 35 km3/year, or 0.27 ± 0.10 mm/year SLE, during the past decade. These recent losses are nearly double the estimated annual loss from the entire Greenland Ice Sheet during the same time period and are much higher than previously published loss estimates for Alaska glaciers. They form the largest glaciological contribution to rising sea level yet measured.

Rapid Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level -- Arendt et al. 297 (5580): 382 -- Science

The entire piece is easily available online. i challenge gslack to read it and come back to us with his conclusions.

LOL, oh good another "science journals" screaming Internet scholar...

Well lets look at what we find in the science journal shall we...

Oh No it seems they studied glaciers in Alaska, not all of them, but some and they were shrinking from the mid 50's to the mid 90's and they think it got worse in 2000-2001...

Thats interesting but thats not 95% of all the glaciers like you claimed now is it...

All of it sounds really scary though. ice melting, scary sea level rising, and big numbers with fancy symbols and all..... Wait... It seems the math isn't showing a drastic melt....

Since you would rather post numbers with no context I will try and fix that and add context...

The article said...

We have used airborne laser altimetry to estimate volume changes of 67 glaciers in Alaska from the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s. The average rate of thickness change of these glaciers was -0.52 m/year. Extrapolation to all glaciers in Alaska yields an estimated total annual volume change of -52 ± 15 km3/year (water equivalent), equivalent to a rise in sea level (SLE) of 0.14 ± 0.04 mm/year. Repeat measurements of 28 glaciers from the mid-1990s to 2000-2001 suggest an increased average rate of thinning, -1.8 m/year. This leads to an extrapolated annual volume loss from Alaska glaciers equal to -96 ± 35 km3/year, or 0.27 ± 0.10 mm/year SLE, during the past decade. These recent losses are nearly double the estimated annual loss from the entire Greenland Ice Sheet during the same time period and are much higher than previously published loss estimates for Alaska glaciers. They form the largest glaciological contribution to rising sea level yet measured.

Ok the first part states they used laser altimetry to estimate volume of ice changes in 67 glaciers in Alaska from the mid 50's to the mid-90's. They found...

rate of thickness change was -0.52m/year

total annual volume change was -52 + or - 15km3/year.

Equivalent to a rise in sea level of 0.14 ± 0.04 mm/year.

Sounds scary.... But the reality is not all the fancy terms and symbols. The reality and only important factor in it is -0.52 m/year of loss in an area of glacial expanse measuring in the 100's of thousands of square miles.... half a meter a year from 100's of thousand square miles... Does that sound like a dangerous threat? No...

the other important number is 0.14 + or - 0.04 mm/year. That means with a loss of half a meter per year we found above, we get an sea level rise of somewhere between 0.14 and 0.10 millimeters a year.... Thats it? LOL, all that talk and all that grandiose speech making of dangerous sea level rise and the reality is its a mere 10-14 millimeters a year?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Again as I said before there has been no discernible sea level rise to match any of the claims of Al Gore or the IPCC claims or estimates. Thank you for proving my point....

Remember context is the key, without it people jump to conclusions and others capitalize on it.. Dude I don't have to have a google link war over this its simple math so please bring more of this nonsense I love showing the reality within the hype...

 

[gslack]

1. BS and thats the reality. one will shrink and another will grow and it changes all the time..

2. Again BS there is no real evidence to support that beyond speculation..

3. More BS that is shown again and again to be either completely false or variable year to year.

4. More nonsense some parts collapsed while some expanded. During the whole last half of the 90's the antarctic ice was expanding overall.

5. more speculative nonsense that has been shown to be variable year to year..

What I have learned from gslack is that the bread and butter of scientific debating is simply to declare your opponents arguing points to be BS and nonsense, and then you win.

Is that roughly how it works?

I remember you... You are the one who acts like a child when he is wrong.... And look above and we see it..... Thanks junior now let the adults talk...

 

[Sodafin]

Gslack -

You did ask for the data, but you don't seem to have looked at it very throroughly - or else you would have seen where and how it has been established that 99% of Alaska's glaciers are in retreat. Please look at the material you asked for, and then get back to us.

btw. You seem to have misunderstood the math aspect - the 52 number is not a grand total loss - it is an average loss.

Here is a Wikipedia overview, which puts it in simpler terms.

There are thousands of glaciers in Alaska, though only a relative few of them have been named. The Columbia Glacier near Valdez in Prince William Sound has retreated 15 km (9.3 mi) in the last 25 years. Icebergs calved off this glacier were a partial cause of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, as the oil tanker had changed course to avoid the icebergs. The Valdez Glacier is in the same area, and though it does not calve, it has also retreated significantly. "A 2005 aerial survey of Alaskan coastal glaciers identified more than a dozen glaciers, many former tidewater and calving glaciers, including Grand Plateau, Alsek, Bear, and Excelsior Glaciers that are rapidly retreating. Of 2,000 glaciers observed, 99% are retreating." (Molnia2) Icy Bay in Alaska is fed by three large glaciers—Guyot, Yahtse, and Tyndall Glaciers—all of which have experienced a loss in length and thickness and, consequently, a loss in area. Tyndall Glacier became separated from the retreating Guyot Glacier in the 1960s and has retreated 24 km (15 mi) since, averaging more than 500 m (1,600 ft) per year.(Molnia)

The Juneau Icefield Research Program has monitored the outlet glaciers of the Juneau Icefield since 1946. On the west side of the ice field, the terminus of the Mendenhall Glacier, which flows into suburban Juneau, Alaska, has retreated 580 m (1,900 ft). Of the nineteen glaciers of the Juneau Icefield, eighteen are retreating, and one, the Taku Glacier, is advancing. Eleven of the glaciers have retreated more than 1 km (0.62 mi) since 1948 — Antler Glacier, 5.4 km (3.4 mi); Gilkey Glacier, 3.5 km (2.2 mi); Norris Glacier, 1.1 km (0.68 mi) and Lemon Creek Glacier, 1.5 km (0.93 mi).(Pelto6) Taku Glacier has been advancing since at least 1890, when naturalist John Muir observed a large iceberg calving front. By 1948 the adjacent fjord had filled in, and the glacier no longer calved and was able to continue its advance. By 2005 the glacier was only 1.5 km (0.93 mi) from reaching Taku Point and blocking Taku Inlet. The advance of Taku Glacier averaged 17 m (56 ft) per year between 1988 and 2005. The mass balance was very positive for the 1946–88 period fueling the advance; however, since 1988 the mass balance has been slightly negative, which should in the future slow the advance of this mighty glacier.(Pelto and Miller)

Long-term mass balance records from Lemon Creek Glacier in Alaska show slightly declining mass balance with time.(Miller and Pelto) The mean annual balance for this glacier was −0.23 m (0.75 ft) each year during the period of 1957 to 1976. Mean annual balance has been increasingly negatively averaging −1.04 m (3.4 ft) per year from 1990 to 2005. Repeat glacier altimetry, or altitude measuring, for 67 Alaska glaciers find rates of thinning have increased by more than a factor of two when comparing the periods from 1950 to 1995 (0.7 m (2.3 ft) per year) and 1995 to 2001 (1.8 m (5.9 ft) per year).(Arendt, et alia) This is a systemic trend with loss in mass equating to loss in thickness, which leads to increasing retreat—the glaciers are not only retreating, but they are also becoming much thinner. In Denali National Park, all glaciers monitored are retreating, with an average retreat of 20 m (66 ft) per year. The terminus of the Toklat Glacier has been retreating 26 m (85 ft) per year and the Muldrow Glacier has thinned 20 m (66 ft) since 1979.(Adema) Well documented in Alaska are surging glaciers that have been known to rapidly advance, even as much as 100 m (330 ft) per day. Variegated, Black Rapids, Muldrow, Susitna and Yanert are examples of surging glaciers in Alaska that have made rapid advances in the past. These glaciers are all retreating overall, punctuated by short periods of advance.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia