Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems the point was missed again.. Different base lines but in the same time frame your plot on WUWT shows a delta of .2C, the other UAH satellite shows a delta of .4C. If it was just the baseline changed, the delta would the same.
I gave the reference for where the plot I showed came from, would you mind providing where your plot came from?
Quote:
In regards IPCC & sea levels- they're a political body masquerading as a scientific institution
It seems at some point the argument runs out of science and turns to trying to discredit the source.
I admit to being an ameteur here but the more I read from the IPCC, the more I trust them. When I fact check skeptics on these forums, over and over they give wrong or deceptive information.
IPCC is earning my trust the more I dig into all of this.
Sea level rise is not a constant world wide, due to various factors such as tectonic plate movement.
In Scandinavia and my part of the world, for instance, sea level is actually falling because isostatic, post glacial, rebound more than makes up for thermal expansion of the oceans and ice melt. The east coast of US sea level is rising especially fast because the land there is sinking while further north in Canada it's rising, again due to the same phenomenon.
Nevertheless, thermal expansion and continental ice melt are causing an inexorable rise of our oceans' volume in balance-that's a fact.
Among their other failed predictions-- 10 ft rise in oceans. We've only got a 2mm/yr rate of rise and most of that is due to rising tectonic plates as they rebound during this interglacial period. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...fluctuate.html Note the map near the end of this article-- many areas show falling ocean levels. It's plate tectonics, not temps.
Jesus Christ you have to be kidding. What a bold-faced lie. The paper - read the paper not the opinion synopsis you post - does not say anything of the sort. It contends ice flow rate may be affected in NORTHEAST Greenland by hydrothermal activity. It does not say anything at all about SURFACE MELT, it does not say anything at all about non-hydrothermal area ice loss, and the preposterous statement "accounting for all the melting we've seen in recent decades" is an utter fabrication. If we were in court you've just been dismissed as a non-credible witness. Read the goddam paper.
This is like a religion to you - an unhealthy monomania. Like I said when I was in this thread weeks back common sense already dictates that two millennia or more of human activity in areas that contribute to climate per se could not failed to have affected climate - absent magic. There is no magical space elevator entirely removing anthropogenic influences and magically exactly counterbalancing the effect. The only question now is to what extent is the anthropogenic influence exacerbating or counteracting or overlying the long-term climate patterns that we do not yet understand.
. It contends ice flow rate may be affected in NORTHEAST Greenland by hydrothermal activity.
.
I apologize if I selected an imperfect reference. There are dozens to choose from on a web search. Do your own homework.BTW- ice flows on melted ice (water) & where does the ice flow to?--the sea--glacier caving. Greenlandic ice sheet mass hit a minimum 3yrs ago and is increasing again== despite GW.
It's the Warmists who treat the subject like a religion: ZERO correlation of co2 & temps over periods longer than 30 yrs--ZERO experimental evidence that co2 affects weather or climate. You believe on faith alone-- THAT'S religion. OTOH, we Deniers question everything and accept nothing without well critiqued proof.
I've been criticized here for siting WUWT so much. It's a convenient source for references, articles usually being reprints from legitimate journals or summary essays by leaders in the field. It's real science with discussion & criticism by workers in the climate science & pertinent related fields.
Here's a good example of open discussion with commenters pointing out strengths and weaknesses in the presentation-- as opposed to other "revered sites" where dissenters are ridiculed or edited out. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...tream-changes/
A quick summary of this discussion:
It seems Warmist insist co2 is THE major factor in weather/climate and that warming will be universally disastrous..
Deniers say that there are many known factors and no doubt some unknown factors that give us our climate, and that co2 is a minor influence. Warming is generally a good thing, and attempts to stop it by limiting energy usage will have disastrous economic effects and all things associated with that, potentially worse unintended consequences, and that such attempts will be futile anyway....other than that, AGW is a great theory for the naive.
I won't waste my time further on this thread. Readers at this point either see the complexity of climate science or will continue to believe the simplicity of the GHG Theory on faith alone.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 09-29-2018 at 03:53 AM..
I apologize if I selected an imperfect reference. There are dozens to choose from on a web search. Do your own homework.BTW- ice flows on melted ice (water) & where does the ice flow to?--the sea--glacier caving. Greenlandic ice sheet mass hit a minimum 3yrs ago and is increasing again== despite GW.
...
I've been criticized here for siting WUWT so much. It's a convenient source for references, articles usually being reprints from legitimate journals or summary essays by leaders in the field. It's real science with discussion & criticism by workers in the climate science & pertinent related fields.
Actually, if you want to cite something, you should trace back to the original sources to make sure that the secondary source is not misrepresenting the data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
It seems Warmist insist co2 is THE major factor in weather/climate and that warming will be universally disastrous..
Deniers say that there are many known factors and no doubt some unknown factors that give us our climate, and that co2 is a minor influence. Warming is generally a good thing, and attempts to stop it by limiting energy usage will have disastrous economic effects and all things associated with that, potentially worse unintended consequences, and that such attempts will be futile anyway....other than that, AGW is a great theory for the naive.
Also, not true. I honestly don't know how you come up with this stuff. On another thread you went after environmentalists for worrying about methane, but now we only care about CO2? I also tried to explain to you the complexities of biogeochemistry, but you dug your heels into a poor representation of the carbon cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
I won't waste my time further on this thread. Readers at this point either see the complexity of climate science or will continue to believe the simplicity of the GHG Theory on faith alone.
Excellent advice. Keep up with your faith, and I'll keep up with the science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
