Rune (06-26-2018)
.
Rune (06-26-2018)
Arctic sea ice volume is the highest in 13 years, and melting at a near record slow rate.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/...lete-collapse/
Rune (06-26-2018)
Why are you so obsessed on this issue? As a bit of an expert in obsession myself, I can tell you, you are unable to handle this issue with any rationality at all. It's not healthy, man. Been their with my obsessions as well. I'd be the same way if someone got me started on the new Star Wars movies, so I purposely avoid the topic.
Rune (06-26-2018)
Funny how the mind will deceive itself. Your article says "Arctic sea ice volume is the highest in 13 years, and melting at a near record slow rate." Not 20 years, or 30 years, just 13 years. And melting is still melting even if it is slower. However, since it does not fit your "beliefs" it has to be a fraud.
"2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"
moon (06-24-2018), Phantasmal (06-24-2018)
Oh dear, there is always one! Even the IPCC admits that the Arctic was as warm in the 1930s, if not even warmer.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/27/e...rctic-warming/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...orth-atlantic/
https://www.schweizerbart.de/papers/...uropean_Arctic
Bigdog (06-25-2018)
Oh dear there is always one fool who cannot comprehend what was written. Just what does that have to do with your 13 year projection?
As to your articles, from the very first one you posted:
"Gillett et al. (2008b) detect anthropogenic influence on near-surface Arctic temperatures over land, with a consistent magnitude in simulations and observations. Wang et al. (2007) also find that observed Arctic warming is inconsistent with simulated internal variability. Both studies ascribe Arctic warmth in the 1930s and 1940s largely to internal variability. Shindell and Faluvegi (2009) infer a large contribution to both midcentury Arctic cooling and late century warming from aerosol forcing changes, with greenhouse gases the dominant driver of long-term warming, though they infer aerosol forcing changes from temperature changes using an inverse approach which may lead to some changes associated with internal variability being attributed to aerosol forcing. We therefore conclude that despite the uncertainties introduced by limited observational coverage, high internal variability, modelling uncertainties (Crook et al., 2011) and poorly understood local forcings, such as the effect of black carbon on snow, there is sufficiently strong evidence to conclude that it is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial warming in Arctic land surface temperatures over the past 50 years."
So, we have a combination of natural warming with manmade warming, creating a melting of the sea ice at both poles. And neither one shows any signs of returning to their normal state.
"2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"
The majority of scientists recognise that there is an anthropogenic signal, however the best evidence is that it is a weak one and is likely swamped by natural climate variability. This is a subject that not very well understood, and has up to now, been largely dismissed by climate alarmists. Their sheer arrogance has been exposed by the physical evidence.
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-...d-1e3ae4712ace
Bigdog (06-25-2018)
Hansen that old crook, has been exposed as a charlatan and a fool.
Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?
James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance.
He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”
With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet.
President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming.
But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.
Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s.
This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988.
Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year.
He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.
Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality.
And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16.
Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.
But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.
As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down.
In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years.
Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible.
Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world.
But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.
Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study?
No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature.
Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product.
How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.
The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases.
Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures.
The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.
These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?
On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening.
Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.
That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-...-up-1529623442
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 06-24-2018 at 10:36 AM.
The fact that its still melting doesnt really matter. The rate does. I mean eventually after thousands of years even the sun itself will burn out so we should have reached for the stars long before then. For the melting thing what matters is if the rate is slow enough where we dont have to give up our standards of living to deal with it as we will have plenty of time to discover other technologies.
The rate of tech development is pretty outstanding. Just watch a tv series made 5-10 years ago and you wont even recognize the technology they used (flip phones lol). Compare technology from world war 2 to now and our tech now would literally seem like something aliens would have had.
If this whole melting thing is occuring over a period of hundreds of years then its not an issue.
edit: Since its brother Havana Moons thread I also have to add that in case of rising sea levels one of the first ones to sink will be filthy Albion anyway so its not a great loss.
tsuke;
You're spot on there. Having seen the projections there won't be any London nor south-eastern England at all.edit: Since its brother Havana Moons thread I also have to add that in case of rising sea levels one of the first ones to sink will be filthy Albion anyway so its not a great loss.
It isn't only rising sea levels which will return most of England to the fish. The UK has been raised on the tectonic plate it shares with Scandinavia due to the mass of the Scandinavian ice. As that ice melts so the plate rises and down goes the other end.
You can understand why maggot is so committed to denial. He's living on the ass-end of a tectonic ducking-stool.
maggot;
Haw, haw......haw. Feeling a tad...er.....submergent, maggot ?Don't suppose you've ever heard of isostatic uplift?
In the UK, the east coast is at a particularly high risk of a) being flooded and b) being destroyed. In fact, we know that sections of the east coast have already been destroyed and we’re fairly sure it’s because the sea is rising and the land is sinking. While the northern parts of the UK are experiencing an isostatic rebound and are rising above sea level, the east coast is sinking and the water along the east coast is rising. This is resulting in more coastal flooding and erosion along the east coast which is destroying it at a concerning rate. Obviously there’s a lot people living along the east coast but what’s more concerning is the fact that there’s a lot of power plants situated along the east coast and four of them are nuclear power plants (there’s also two deactivated nuclear plants). Even if we know that those plants are going to be destroyed by coastal erosion, there’s not a lot we can do to prevent an accident since these things stay dangerous for many thousands of years after they’re deactivated.
Last edited by moon; 06-24-2018 at 02:22 PM.
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
cancel2 2022 (06-24-2018)
Not really, I live in the north. Anyway the rate of sinking is around 1mm a year, or 10cm per century, so nobody is shitting themselves apart from you. Of course you're too shit scared to even say where you live, I am not really surprised though as you've made a fuckton of enemies .
Rune (06-26-2018)
Bookmarks