Hey Warmers!

[bobgnote]

The Greenland ice-melt happens approx. every 150 years and has since millenium. (according to ice core drillings) The last one was in 1889, so this recent melt is just about on time. Sounds more like a weather cycle.

Looks more like solar intensity backed off, perennial ice has been melting, which should cool average temperatures, but temperatures have been increasing, anyway, due to the greenhouse effect:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JA012117.shtml

That ice-melt is extraordinary, isn't it? What do you bet it happens again, next year, when solar cycle 24 is due, to peak? What do you bet it happens a lot, which may have the side-effect, of enhancing glaciation, if only we can get the planet to cool down?

We need the planet to re-freeze, NOW, so we can have that Greenland ice nice and packed. OR, that ice will melt a lot faster, than we want it to melt. It will only take an average temp increase, of 1.6 C, to melt all of it.

And then the East Antarctic ice will start to slide, into warming currents. Are you skeptics into rad swimming?

All you have to do is live long enough, for bad things, to happen.

 

[dogtowner]

Your reading of temperature trends is apparently non-existent, dt. The 10 hottest years on instrument record were in the years 1998-2011, and 2012 will be another record-setter, with many tens of thousands of local high records, in the past year, including hottest March, May, etc. monthly and overall season records.

You continue to fail to notice, how 1998 was a peak El Nino year, which may have also spiked, from 1992 Pinotubo emissions, after ash albedo failed, but CO2 was still around, in the atmosphere. Haven't you heard, of ENSO or volcanoes? Catch up, with the rest of the world.

CO2 has a forcing effect, which will lead temperature increases, in the current trend. Temperatures will shoot, UP, in a geologic instant, but you don't have a good perspective, on this.

We won't be alive, when the temperatures catch up, with GHG concentrations, all the way. But we will feel the heat, from the chase.

even your climate gods have admitted this is not true.

 

[Cruella]

All you have to do is live long enough, for bad things, to happen.

LOL...you got that right. I still live in the same town I was born in, and our weather these past several years has been a lot cooler than I can ever remember. So you go right ahead and buy into the the GW stuff. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[bobgnote]

What gods admitted what is untrue, dt? Your rant is incoherent, if it is supposed to reply, to specific facts. I'm losing interest . . .

Cruella, do you want to tell us approximately where you live? Do you have a breakdown, for ENSO variations, in your part of Cali?

 

[dogtowner]

What gods admitted what is untrue, dt? Your rant is incoherent, if it is supposed to reply, to specific facts. I'm losing interest . . .

Cruella, do you want to tell us approximately where you live? Do you have a breakdown, for ENSO variations, in your part of Cali?

Phil Jones among others. If you were staying abreast of the news regarding this you would already know these things.

 

[palerider]

This skeptic thread is virtually abandoned.

Like most skeptic threads, the warmers ran tail between their legs and us skeptics don't much care to hang about bolstering each other's egos.

BTW, the Earth isn't flat,

But the climate models at present are based on a flat earth that doesn't rotate and has no night but instead receives energy from the sun all over at the same time at 1/4 of the actual amount of incoming solar radiation. Flat earth modelling....how about that?

so when the Greenland ice really starts to melt, which by now you know it is doing, at an unprecedented rate, with Arctic cap ice, the Greenland melt will actively push sea levels, upward.

Actually, it isn't. Pielkie sr. recently chided nasa and their accomplices in the press for making such an absud claim.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-in-greenland-my-comments-on-this-media-hype/

There has been widespread media reporting of this melting (e.g. Fox News, MSNBC), but the real news story is the overstatement of this weather event by the media (and some scientists at NASA). The headline is the biased part of the article, which Seth may not have much control on, but, regardless, this biased misleading headline needs to be identified.

Greenland temperatures were in the 70s, in March, and the whole ice sheet just turned to slush, July 2012. Just saying!

I see you skeptics haven't updated this thread, since Feb. 3, 2012. How do you like it, now?

I like it just fine. Here is a web cam of the summit station in greenland that reported the "massive melting" I may be wrong but I don't see any slush.

http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

 

[bobgnote]

More to the point, C, you could live in Alaska, where temps are off a degree, since a lot of Arctic ice and permafrost is melting.

You could live, in the Pacific NW, which hasn't been roasted, but since El Nino events will be more common, one is due, by the end of Summer 2012, and you could end up, in the mud, no matter where on the "left coast" you happen to live.

Since so many of you are into religion, check out the Roman Warming Period. Isn't that wild? The Roman Warming Period, and the Minoan and Medieval were all warmer, than today, as was the previous Holocene Thermal Maximum.

I would also recommend watching Spartacus, on Starz, if you can. There is this one funny Roman, played by John Hannah, as Quintus Batiatus, and he is batshit-crazy, but he has all sorts of quotable remarks, including one, about how the gods just spread cheeks and shove. But that quote isn't in the common websites, for this.

Some of you are going to undergo changes, in religious views, in the course of our climate catching up and surpassing the Roman Warming Period, but we may not live, all the way to catching the PETM extinction, while survivors head, toward P-T extinction conditions. It will get about as tough to survive, as in Roman times, I guess. I know one guy, who just says, bring it on, etc. Talk about batshit-crazy!

Your handle, Cruella may just go around and come around, you know! That keeps happening, in Spartacus.

Of course, we know how that story is likely to end, in 2013, when we will see, what we shall see.

 

[palerider]

Your reading of temperature trends is apparently non-existent, dt. The 10 hottest years on instrument record were in the years 1998-2011, and 2012 will be another record-setter, with many tens of thousands of local high records, in the past year, including hottest March, May, etc. monthly and overall season records.

Which tampered temperature record are you referring to?

CO2 has a forcing effect, which will lead temperature increases, in the current trend. Temperatures will shoot, UP, in a geologic instant, but you don't have a good perspective, on this.

Again, how does CO2 manage to be a forcing effect? Which law of phyisics supports and predicts that CO2 might have some forcing effect? If it is true, surely at least one law of physics supports and predicts it.

We won't be alive, when the temperatures catch up, with GHG concentrations, all the way. But we will feel the heat, from the chase.

They don't have to catch up. Increased temperatures preceed increased atmospheric CO2. CO2 is forever trying to catch up with temperatures.

 

[bobgnote]

Like most skeptic threads, the warmers ran tail between their legs and us skeptics don't much care to hang about bolstering each other's egos.

This seems to be a relatively young forum. Give it time. You do know a lot of forums are run, by people who absolutely refuse all AGW media, don't you? We don't see all that many black Obamney supporters, at some forums, but at others, there are plenty of his stooges. I won't vote for an Obamney, but I want to see white Obamney's tax returns. It's a cred issue.

But the climate models at present are based on a flat earth that doesn't rotate and has no night but instead receives energy from the sun all over at the same time at 1/4 of the actual amount of incoming solar radiation. Flat earth modelling....how about that?

What on earth are you writing about?

Actually, it isn't. Pielkie sr. recently chided nasa and their accomplices in the press for making such an absud claim.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-in-greenland-my-comments-on-this-media-hype/

Mr. Pielke is a mere ranter, who probably gets money, not even from an oil company, since oil companies admit global warming and climate change. I have no clue, why his website is worth visiting, again.

I like it just fine. Here is a web cam of the summit station in greenland that reported the "massive melting" I may be wrong but I don't see any slush.

http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

The big melt happened during early July, but we have to wait and see, if this happens, again, and if solar storms precede the melts, etc. Even so, temperature records are falling.

High temp records are predicted, to out-number low-temp records, by 20-1, by 2050, and by 50-1, by 2100.

When too much ice melts, already, successive melts will have less cooling effect, so warming will continue, to go runaway.

 

[palerider]

What on earth are you writing about?

I find it ironic that warmers like to talk about flat earthers when the models that pass for science among them are universally based on a flat earth.

Mr. Pielke is a mere ranter, who probably gets money, not even from an oil company, since oil companies admit global warming and climate change. I have no clue, why his website is worth visiting, again.

Odd you should say so, since he is among the most respected scientists in the world.

The big melt happened during early July, but we have to wait and see, if this happens, again,

Well sure its going to happen again. The earth is still in the very long process of coiming out of an ice age. It will get warmer then cooler and warmer and cooler with an overall warming trend that if earth history tells us anything at all will last for about 750,000 to 1.5 million years and top out with no ice on earth whatsoever. Ice on earth is the anomoly, not the norm.

Can you name anything that is presently happening in the global climate that is outside, or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability?

 

[bobgnote]

Which tampered temperature record are you referring to?

If you believe all the many, recent thousands of high temperature records are tampered, we are simply moving in a circle, and so, good day, to you.

Again, how does CO2 manage to be a forcing effect? Which law of phyisics supports and predicts that CO2 might have some forcing effect? If it is true, surely at least one law of physics supports and predicts it.

Again, you seem to be referring to back-radiation, which you don't believe in, and so, Earth has no way, to heat up, with trapped IR, at all, and mommy can go ahead and leave baby, in the car, with the windows up, while she shops. If you don't think a greenhouse effect operates, at all, we are moving, in a circle.

They don't have to catch up. Increased temperatures preceed increased atmospheric CO2. CO2 is forever trying to catch up with temperatures.

Sure temperature leading happens, to a degree (pun). But if you believe in back-radiation, the main forcing effect will always be CO2 or cumulative GHG concentrations. If you don't think any greenhouse effect applies, you don't believe the atmospheric blanket can trap IR or escaping heat, at night.

Do you have any good websites, with information, not rants? If not, ghave a ood day. These will get hotter, over time.

 

[bobgnote]

I find it ironic that warmers like to talk about flat earthers when the models that pass for science among them are universally based on a flat earth.

Not only that, people who won't notice climate change and who will not alter their behavior are like the HIV stricken bath-house patrons, who shoved their fatal doses, all the way past AIDS, to a deadly epidemic. Don't be so surprised.

Odd you should say so, since he is among the most respected scientists in the world.

Such skeptic websites seem full of rants, decrying known outcomes and reporters. At least Watt has a graph or several. If Mr.Pielke has a doctorate, all he does at his website is quack, quack, the Greenland ice is frozen again. I have no respect, for this sort of media.

Well sure its going to happen again. The earth is still in the very long process of coiming out of an ice age. It will get warmer then cooler and warmer and cooler with an overall warming trend that if earth history tells us anything at all will last for about 750,000 to 1.5 million years and top out with no ice on earth whatsoever. Ice on earth is the anomoly, not the norm.

Can you name anything that is presently happening in the global climate that is outside, or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability?

Starting at the end of the 18th Century, but accelerating, in the 1950s, CO2 concentration started skyrocketing, so it is all the way, to 400 ppm, when it was 280 ppm, c. 1800. There will be no global cooling, in our lifetimes, or for many lifetimes, thereafter, unless GHG emissions are controlled, and CO2 respirators somehow flourish, instead of succumb.

GHGs now include a lot of industrial gases, and CH4 is out-gassing, as a direct result, of human industry and neglect of environmental degradation.

Gosh, ice isn't normal, except ALL THE TIME. Since we have been at a thermal maximum, with temperatures trying to move downward, on schedule, I suspect you didn't notice any of the other GHG-preceded warmings, such as the PETM or the P-T extinction.

 

[Cruella]

No I do not have ENSO readings whatever they are. I live on the coast in So. Cal.

 

[palerider]

If you believe all the many, recent thousands of high temperature records are tampered, we are simply moving in a circle, and so, good day, to you.

Good day to you also. I see that you can't answer the evidence of data tampering. Not to worry, not much that you could say about it anyway. Lower the temperature of the past and suddenly the present and the future start looking awful warm.

Again, you seem to be referring to back-radiation, which you don't believe in, and so, Earth has no way, to heat up, with trapped IR, at all, and mommy can go ahead and leave baby, in the car, with the windows up, while she shops. If you don't think a greenhouse effect operates, at all, we are moving, in a circle.

It isn't a matter of belief, or disbelief. It is a matter of the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics states:

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The second law is stated in absolute terms. NOT POSSIBLE. ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW. These terms do not allow any wiggle room. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface of the earth, therefore heat can not flow from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth.

The law of conservation of energy states:

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed

If energy radiated from the surface of the earth were re radiated back to the surface of the earth and absorbed, then the output radiative output from the surface of the earth would be larger than possible with the energy from its only energy source....the sun. Climate science says that 161 watts per square meter reaches the surface of the earth from the sun. Not an accurate number but rather a product of the flat earth modelling, but aside from that, 161 watts per square meter reaching the earth from the only energy source......the sun. But a total of 493 watts per square meter are being radiated from the surface of the earth. Interesting, don't you think? 161 watts per square meter being absorbed but a total of 493 watts being radiated. I hate to break it to you, but numbers like that involve the creation of energy. We would have no energy worries at all if it were possible to put 161 watts into a system and get 493 out of it. Sorry, but it isn't possible in energy plants, or in the earth system.

Sure temperature leading happens, to a degree (pun).

If temperature leads CO2 by 4 minutes, much less 400 years, then you have a correlation suggesting very strongly that increased temperatures are the cause of increased atmospheric CO2. You have exactly zero correlation suggesting that CO2 drives temperature in any way.

But if you believe in back-radiation, the main forcing effect will always be CO2 or cumulative GHG concentrations. If you don't think any greenhouse effect applies, you don't believe the atmospheric blanket can trap IR or escaping heat, at night.

If you believe in backradiation, then you should have a better reason for believing that because someone told you it was happening. I don't give backradiation any creedence because there isn't a single physical law that either predicts it or supports it while at least 3 say explicitly that it can not happen. Upon what do you base your belief in backradiation?

Do you have any good websites, with information, not rants? If not, ghave a ood day. These will get hotter, over time.

I don't rant. I answer your questions, rebut your statements, make my points and ask questions. You don't seem to be able to answer any of my questions even though they are very basic in nature and cut right to the foundation of climate science.

 

[dogtowner]

time to put up Bob. or not. your call. if you have science on your side it should be easy. if yoiu have cut-n-paste on your side, not so much.