1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years

I like that idea...talk about a "debt reduction" package...!

 

Is the difference between 'scientific agreement' and 'political agreement' really so obscure to you?

 

I see you're again having a lot of trouble comprehending the scientific material. Try reading it again or have someone explain it to you. Slowly.

 

Utterly delusional nonsense. The source does not in any way support your fraudulent claims. As I have just repeatedly demonstrated.

 

My disagreement has always been political.

No additional taxation in the US is acceptable.
No additional regulation is acceptable.
No further money transfers to the UN is acceptable.

PARTICULARLY when the rest of the world won't lift a finger about it.

 

We all see that , as always, you completely fail to address a question CENTRAL to your entire worldview.

Reason: You haven't a CLUE WTF you are talking about, per usual. Anyone pretending that "concensus" is the means of establishing proof in science, has a lot of gall trying to impugn others.


Once again: WHAT IS THE IDEAL "MEAN TEMPERATURE" for the PLANET?

What is the "CORRECT amount of ICE COVER"?

No answers? No kidding.

We know...you, like ALL WARMISTS, can only regurgitate your spoon feedings, and are utterly incapable of critical thinking, linear thought,and logical deduction, when it comes to your "religion".

Just like your YEARS of failure trying to produce a SINGLE, LIVE, CHEMICAL TEST, proving the effects of thecurrent MINISCULE atmospheric CO2 concentrations,and the even MORE miniscule human part of that.

Please, by all means...continue to pretend that "you've proved it all before".

It's funny,and newcomers here can benefit from the clear , concise illustration of your total inability , to actually DEFEND your COMPLETE SPECULATION, BASED ON "COMPUTER MODELS", with the actual EMPIRICAL DATA.

But..sure...you're all about "science"...

 

You really think that your source doesn't say that a majority of scientists who do believe that climate change is human induced also think that the warming will only have little to none or moderate effects opposed to the catastrophic effects that are usually bandied about? It says exactly that. I even directly quoted the part that says that. I don't see how you can repeatedly deny that which is right in front of your face.

 

No, dude, the source doesn't say that at all, as I explained very clearly in post #46.

 

It is one of your many delusions that your idiotic and meaningless questions are central to anything.

There you go, talking to yourself again.

Anyone who can't even spell consensus correctly is obviously going to be clueless about what the word even means. Anyone who thinks there is such a thing as "proof in science" is obviously clueless about science and how it works. Anyone who thinks that the scientific consensus on AGW is a "means of establishing proof in science" rather than a result of the preponderance of scientific evidence obviously has no idea whatsoever what is going on.

Completely clueless and meaningless questions, suitable only for deceiving the ignorant.

There is no "IDEAL "MEAN TEMPERATURE"", there is only the range of temperature that was normal for the Earth for the last ten thousand years during which time the agricultural systems that currently feed seven billion people were developed and evolved. There is only the previously normal range of temperatures that has preserved the mountain glaciers that supply water in the summer to a large part of the Earth's population and our agricultural systems. There is only the previously normal range of temperatures that has kept the Earth's sea levels fairly constant for the last 6 thousand years, resulting in the current situation where about 44% of the world's population lives within about 90 miles from the coastlines and there are trillions of dollars of cities and other coastal infrastructure, all of which will be severely threatened and possibly destroyed by the rising sea levels produced by global warming.

There is no "CORRECT amount of ICE COVER" in some rightwingnut 'politically correct' meaning of the word. There is only the previously normal stability of the Arctic ice cap, whose current rapid disappearance is causing climate and weather pattern disruptions and altering the flow of the jet stream. There is only the previously normal stability of the Antarctic ice sheets and shelves, which are now losing ice mass and beginning to break up and disintegrate. There is only the previously normal stability of the mountain glaciers, which have endured since the last 'ice age' and are now rapidly shrinking and disappearing, threatening water supplies for billions of humans and vast agricultural regions.

 

This is a cut and paste directly from your post #46:

"Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger, and 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming."....

....dude.

 

Really, DUDE, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....

You're doing the same thing as always - cherry-picking your quotes.

Just in that quote, it says that 41% of the scientists sampled thought the results of AGW would be catastrophic and 44% thought the effects would be more moderate. Even given the limitations involved in that sample, it is significant that close to half of the scientists think the consequences of AGW will be catastrophic. Where you go off the rails on the crazy train is in assuming that the sample being used is representative of the entire scientific community, which is why you always leave off the first part of that quote where it says that the sample of scientists consists of "489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union". I pointed out the limitations involved in sampling only those two groups and not the many other groups of scientists who actually work in the fields pertaining to climate science (some meteorologists do but not the standard weather readers with little or no knowledge of climate science, and they were part of the group being randomly sampled). Among actual climate scientists, the vast majority think that the consequences of AGW will be catastrophic if mankind doesn't manage to curtail our carbon emissions.

And of course, speaking of cherry-picking, you ignored everything else in post #46, like the statements of the major world scientific organizations that affirm the dangers and catastrophic consequences of AGW.

Like the position statement from The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.

 

Oh, I see, you don't like the semantics. Add the word "polled" after the word "scientists". Now you agree, certainly.

BTW, do you have a citation for your claim that "Among actual climate scientists, the vast majority think that the consequences of AGW will be catastrophic if mankind doesn't manage to curtail our carbon emissions"???

 

Climate scientists have known that for decades. Not only that, climate scientists have known for decades what caused that natural warm period 6000 years ago -- a natural process called orbital forcing. Which is why climate scientists also know that orbital forcing peaked 6000 years ago, and has been cooling the planet since then.

Which is why climate scientists also know that the current warmth is caused by us, and not by orbital forcing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4434/943.abstract

 

Yet oddly enough, if you pick ANY of them, you're dead wrong.

 

BZZZT!! No, sorry Lee, but thanks for playing. Don Pardo, do we have any nice parting gifts for Lee?

The point is that warming is proceeding rapidly, much more rapidly than any natural climate change.

Well that's interesting, because a Google search on "National Geodetic Survey" and "22 year measurement standard" yielded zero hits. So you're going to have to provide a link if you expect anyone to believe that.

Beyond that, the NGS only changes datum very infrequently, because that would mean updating thousands upon thousands of records in its database, and hundreds of maps as well. That's obviously a big expensive undertaking that they avoid if at all possible. The last time they changed datum at NGS was 1988, and the time before that was 1929. So just because the NGS declines to change its datum tells us nothing about whether the sea level is actually rising, or ice is actually melting.

To find that, you have to actually look at real, honest-to-god data. Like this sea level data from satellite radar altimetry from the University of Colorado:


... which clearly shows that sea level is rising. Or, if 20 years isn't enough for you, we can look at global tide gauge records that go much farther back:


And sea level is rising there too.

But what about that ice? Is it actually melting? There are two ways to figure that out. First is the mass balance method. You go out to a glacier, measure its depth by radar, and measure its rate of flow toward the sea. That tells you how much mass the glacier is losing every year. You compare that to the amount of snowfall gain every year, and you can tell if the glacier is gaining or losing mass overall. Do that for enough glaciers, and you know what's happening over a continent.

Here's what studies of mass balance show for Antarctica's glaciers:



Antarctica's glaciers are losing mass.

But ice mass can be measured by satellite too, by measuring its gravitational effect on satellite orbits. And from that, we know that Ice is melting from Antarctica. Here's the satellite data from Velicogna 2009:



And, ice is melting from Greenland too. Here's the satellite data from Velicogna 2009, updated with more recent data from John Wahr:

Lee, you really ought to start reading science from scientists, and not from bloggers. Because you're dead wrong.

 

Sixty million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were about six times higher than they are today. I'd say that CO2 had something to do with it. Wouldn't you?

 

Meaningless nonsense. The thing I agree with is that you have no idea what you're talking about and you like to cherry-pick the evidence.

They took a small random sample of only a few hundred scientists from only two groups, meteorologists and geologists, and you're trying to claim that that small limited sample is representative of the entire scientific community - and that is just nonsense. It doesn't matter if you call it "polled" or cornholed, the sample in that particular survey is too small and too limited in the range of scientific disciplines involved to give any kind of meaningful results in relation to the world scientific community's position on AGW/CC.

Scientific opinion on climate change

***

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)

Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)

American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

 

Sorry to have questioned your religion. I meant no offense. I also apologize for quoting the source that you provided.

Also, I was looking for actual numbers concerning the "vast majority of actual climate scientists" not some cherry picked statements from cherry picked organizations. Thanks, and I hope that request doesn't further offend you or your god.

 

If you consider a belief in scientific evidence and research to be a "religion", then I feel very sorry for you.

Snarky sarcasm is no substitute for an intelligent appraisal of the evidence. If you're going to quote something, try quoting the whole thing and not cherry-picking just the parts that seem to support your propaganda induced 'opinions'.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...."cherry-picked organizations"??? LOLOLOLOL....do you even know what the phrase 'cherry-picking' means? It refers to selectively choosing only a portion of a quote or of a set of sources and implying that they are representative of the entire quote or all of the sources. If I supposedly "cherry-picked" the organizations to quote, show us all of the other major scientific institutions and organizations that disagree with the ones I quoted. LOLOLOLOL. Go ahead and explain to everybody just how it happens that the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of America, and the American Chemical Society are not expressing the mainstream scientific conclusions held by the large majority of scientists regarding the dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. Plus, of course, all of the other National Academies of Science and major scientific organizations in the rest of the world that were listed or quoted in that 'Scientific Opinion on Climate Change' Wiki article I also cited.

 

Your claim concerned the "vast majority of actual climate scientists" and instead of posting poll numbers of individual climate scientists you quoted statements from organizations that agreed with your position. That's textbook cherry-picking, aka confirmation bias. How do you not see that? If I made a claim that a vast majority of librarians held a certain position, quoting a librarian organization's position does not confirm that a "vast majority" of librarians hold that position...it simply confirms that the leadership of that particular organization holds that position. If you need any more help understanding just let me know.

 

Hmmmm - yes and you had better ask the palaeontologists what was happening in the tropics at the time of high CO2 - latest information has it that at the time of peak CO2 the tropics were a wasteland

And no, I will not post a link because you have not been specific enough in what you have been saying to make a defined response

 

Hmmmmm - this "game" seems familiar

Pretty soon it will be DEMANDED of us to show the individual letters from every scientist around the world as "proof". Since most people are passive in acceptance of a stance like this and do not issue individual statements - let us look at the other side of the coin

Prove to us that the majority of scientists do NOT support global warming

Waits for the inevitable disinterment of the "Oregon petition"

Oh! and small warning - any post that STARTS with "it's your religion" will not be read past that point

 

What happened to you ignoring me? I knew it was too good to be true.

 

I am not ignoring you - just choosing where and when to respond

I debated responding to this one but I like Livefree and do not want to see him dragged into the little "game" of "demanding" more and more ridiculous specifics. Because it IS a "game"

And a disingenuous one at that

 

it's your religion

You previously told me that you would ignore me. Something about life being too short to have to substantiate your claims. You've gone back on your word.