Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

[Carbizene]

Glaciologists say the permanent ice shelves are collapsing, take it up with them if you don't agree.

The only thing permanent about ice shelves is their constant flow into the sea and breakup.

Ironic that you love to talk about Hubris and yet here you are displaying it to the extent you think you know more about Ice shelves than Glaciologists and the people who have actually been there to measure the collapse of permanent ice shelves. What bit of the word 'permanent' don't you understand? or do you just know more than Glaciologists?

[Carbizene]

And if your grandmother had bollocks she'd be your grandfather.

Probably the most Scientific statement you've made in a while, been doing some book lurnin huh?..remember those scientists don't know nuffin with their fancy reading and wristwatch calculators.

[Typhoon]

Glaciologists say the permanent ice shelves are collapsing, take it up with them if you don't agree.

The only thing permanent about ice shelves is their constant flow into the sea and breakup.

Ironic that you love to talk about Hubris and yet here you are displaying it to the extent you think you know more about Ice shelves than Glaciologists and the people who have actually been there to measure the collapse of permanent ice shelves. What bit of the word 'permanent' don't you understand? or do you just know more than Glaciologists?

The arrows in image indicate motion.

[Typhoon]

And if your grandmother had bollocks she'd be your grandfather.

Probably the most Scientific statement you've made in a while, been doing some book lurnin huh?..remember those scientists don't know nuffin with their fancy reading and wristwatch calculators.

Appeal to faith in authority.

The reality is that the track record of supposed experts in predicting the future is one of being consistently wrong especially when it comes to tipping points and imminent doom.

So how does one determine the global temperature in 1890 to +/- 0.1C?

[Carbizene]

Appeal to faith in authority.

The reality is that the track record of supposed experts in predicting the future is one of being consistently wrong especially when it comes to tipping points and imminent doom.

How is listening to experts in the field who have been on site an appeal to authority? are you Pol Pot?

Glaciologists are not predicting the collapse of permanent ice shelves, they are measuring them collapse but of course you know more than them, can you also cure Cancer?

[Carbizene]

It is interesting as time goes on the paranoid mind makes broader and broader accustions of tom foolery as seen in the suggestion that Glaciologists are all incompetent.

Delingpole the other day claimed Wind turbines have created more environmental damage than Oil thus as the claims get more ludicrous a new phenommenon of anti-science is spawned, basically the New Luddites are being formed.

[Typhoon]

So how does one determine the global temperature in 1890 to +/- 0.1C?

[Typhoon]

It is interesting as time goes on the paranoid mind makes broader and broader accustions of tom foolery as seen in the suggestion that Glaciologists are all incompetent.

Delingpole the other day claimed Wind turbines have created more environmental damage than Oil thus as the claims get more ludicrous a new phenommenon of anti-science is spawned, basically the New Luddites are being formed.

This thread is for for the discussion of the science or lack thereof with regards to climate.

Further content free ad hominem post will be sent to the warm Hell where they belong:

Apocalyptic Daze: secular elites prophesy a doomsday without redemption.

[planctom]

It is interesting as time goes on the paranoid mind makes broader and broader accustions of tom foolery as seen in the suggestion that Glaciologists are all incompetent.

Delingpole the other day claimed Wind turbines have created more environmental damage than Oil thus as the claims get more ludicrous a new phenommenon of anti-science is spawned, basically the New Luddites are being formed.

This thread is for for the discussion of the science or lack thereof with regards to climate.

Further content free ad hominem post will be sent to the warm Hell where they belong:

Apocalyptic Daze: secular elites prophesy a doomsday without redemption.

Those greens are like watermelons: green on the outside, red inside.

[Typhoon]

It is interesting as time goes on the paranoid mind makes broader and broader accustions of tom foolery as seen in the suggestion that Glaciologists are all incompetent.

Delingpole the other day claimed Wind turbines have created more environmental damage than Oil thus as the claims get more ludicrous a new phenommenon of anti-science is spawned, basically the New Luddites are being formed.

This thread is for for the discussion of the science or lack thereof with regards to climate.

Further content free ad hominem post will be sent to the warm Hell where they belong:

Apocalyptic Daze: secular elites prophesy a doomsday without redemption.

Those greens are like watermelons: green on the outside, red inside.

Very good.

Still wondering how does one reconstructs global temperature back in 1890 to +/- 0.1C.

[Azrael]

Glaciologists say the permanent ice shelves are collapsing, take it up with them if you don't agree.

The only thing permanent about ice shelves is their constant flow into the sea and breakup.

Ironic that you love to talk about Hubris and yet here you are displaying it to the extent you think you know more about Ice shelves than Glaciologists and the people who have actually been there to measure the collapse of permanent ice shelves. What bit of the word 'permanent' don't you understand? or do you just know more than Glaciologists?

The arrows in image indicate motion.

So is your point that losses from calving and melting shouldn't be considered in isolation from gains from precipitation in calculating the net loss or gain in the ice shelf? Do you have any good data on continent wide increase or decrease in the precipitation rate? I heard that it varies by region; but I don't know about whether precipitation has increased or decreased continent wide.

[Simple Minded]

Still wondering how does one reconstructs global temperature back in 1890 to +/- 0.1C.

the hell with that, I want someone to make the case that global temperature can be measured to +/- 2 C in 2012. I can get a thermometer calibrated to +/- 0.1 C (ONLY under controlled lab conditions), go out in the backyard and measure temperture datapoints, move 30 feet in X,Y, or Z and get datapoint readings that are 4-8 C different.

If we use satellites to measure ocean surface temperature, how are the accuracy of actual water temperature (at what depth?) readings affected by waves that are 6" high vs. waves that are 24" high?

Seletion of datapoint location is critical to aggregate temperatures measured.

Has anyone plotted "global temperature" vs. total area of existing asphalt or concrete on the Earth's surface?

Robert Felix has assembled a lot of data showing total ice on the Earth is increasing. Depends on who is paying for what study.

[Simple Minded]

Every day, I am struck by how much fatter people are now than 10, 20, 30 years ago. If anyone is interested in funding it, I bet I can put together a hell of a "scientific study" that fat people cause global warming, cooling or climate change..... or all three.... depending on what they eat.....

[Carbizene]

So how does one determine the global temperature in 1890 to +/- 0.1C?

I don't know therefore it can't be done.

[Carbizene]

So is your point that losses from calving and melting shouldn't be considered in isolation from gains from precipitation in calculating the net loss or gain in the ice shelf? Do you have any good data on continent wide increase or decrease in the precipitation rate? I heard that it varies by region; but I don't know about whether precipitation has increased or decreased continent wide.

The process the Glaciologists describe is not Calving, they describe the collapse of permanent Ice shelves, different from Calving because Calving doesn't remove the Shelf in it's entirety.

As to preciptation over the whole of Antarctica GRACE data shows that whatever it is there is a net loss of Ice:

The team used Grace data to estimate Antarctica's ice mass between 2002 and 2009. Their results, published Nov. 22 in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that the East Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at an estimated rate of 57 gigatonnes a year. A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds. The ice loss there may have begun as early as 2006. The study also confirmed previous results showing that West Antarctica is losing about 132 gigatonnes of ice per year.

[Carbizene]

Has anyone plotted "global temperature" vs. total area of existing asphalt or concrete on the Earth's surface?

The issue of asphalt and concrete (UHI) is proven moot by the fact that Longwave radiation escaping the planet has decreased in the spectrum absorbed by CO2, proving beyond all doubt that increased CO2 is increasing LW retention thus irrefutably warming the planet.

[Typhoon]

Has anyone plotted "global temperature" vs. total area of existing asphalt or concrete on the Earth's surface?

The issue of asphalt and concrete (UHI) is proven moot by the fact that Longwave radiation escaping the planet has decreased in the spectrum absorbed by CO2, proving beyond all doubt that increased CO2 is increasing LW retention thus irrefutably warming the planet.

Oh?

Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments



The Impact of Urbanization on Land Temperature Trends

[Simple Minded]

Has anyone plotted "global temperature" vs. total area of existing asphalt or concrete on the Earth's surface?

The issue of asphalt and concrete (UHI) (VARIABLE A) is proven moot by the fact that Longwave radiation escaping the planet (VARIABLE B) has decreased in the spectrum absorbed by CO2, proving beyond all doubt that increased CO2 (VARIABLE C) is increasing LW retention thus irrefutably warming the planet.

Carbizene,

This is an excellent example of the type of biased thinking which depletes my confidence in the climate change True Believers.

MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE BELIEVER: "Because the whole focus of my premise is that VARIABLE C is causing change, I choose to ignore VARIABLE A and a very large number of other variables that may influence ANY INFORMATION OR MEASUREMENTS that COULD POSSIBLY cast doubt upon my preferred assertion."

This absolutely reeks of political influence rather than scientific discipline. My paymaster demands a specific result from my "research."

[Carbizene]

Carbizene,

This is an excellent example of the type of biased thinking which depletes my confidence in the climate change True Believers.

MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE BELIEVER: "Because the whole focus of my premise is that VARIABLE C is causing change, I choose to ignore VARIABLE A and a very large number of other variables that may influence ANY INFORMATION OR MEASUREMENTS that COULD POSSIBLY cast doubt upon my preferred assertion."

This absolutely reeks of political influence rather than scientific discipline. My paymaster demands a specific result from my "research."

err...ok way to waffle on in a way that ignores dicussing the science..Simple fact is the LWR is being absorbed in the spectrum that only CO2 can be responsible for, if you think this is 'unpossible' take it up with Einstein.

This questioning the basic tennants of Science reeks of Luddism, you are questioning a basic tennant in how wave and particle interact.

[Carbizene]

Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments



The Impact of Urbanization on Land Temperature Trends

So what? this is irelevant to the issue of Long wave radiation decrease. I don't think you have any idea what I'm talking about.

In fact if concrete etc was significant LWR would be increasing, so you contradict yourself.

I willl note also that it is hilarious after only just posting how it is impossible to accurately measure temperature a hundred years ago you post that very measurement in attempt to support.

[Simple Minded]

Carbizene,

This is an excellent example of the type of biased thinking which depletes my confidence in the climate change True Believers.

MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE BELIEVER: "Because the whole focus of my premise is that VARIABLE C is causing change, I choose to ignore VARIABLE A and a very large number of other variables that may influence ANY INFORMATION OR MEASUREMENTS that COULD POSSIBLY cast doubt upon my preferred assertion."

This absolutely reeks of political influence rather than scientific discipline. My paymaster demands a specific result from my "research."

err...ok way to waffle on in a way that ignores dicussing the science..Simple fact is the LWR is being absorbed in the spectrum that only CO2 can be responsible for, if you think this is 'unpossible' take it up with Einstein.

This questioning the basic tennants of Science reeks of Luddism, you are questioning a basic tennant in how wave and particle interact.

gotta yell BULLSHIT!!!! on ya Carbi.

Now please go back and actually read my original post. My post has nothing to do with questioning "a basic tenant" and everything to do with humans ignoring any data that weakens their sales pitch, and exaggerating any correlation that helps sell their viewpoint. Much more related to the psychology of sales than physics.

If you measure an increase in an insulating variable that reduces lost heat, lost heat will decrease......Duh! Does it have the same effect on incoming radiation? What bout that big bright round thing in the sky?

Increase in CO2 causes increase in temperature? Hell even Al Gore showed plenty of graphs which showed higher CO2 levels lagged temperature increases. I can't push this viewpoint cause it contradict the thesis I am trying to sell, obviously people are the cause of the increase in CO2, therefore Fat People cause Global Warming.

Now how bout the accuracy of those wild eyed +/- 0.1 C measurements?

[Marcus]

gotta yell BULLSHIT!!!!

. . My post has . . everything to do with humans ignoring any data that weakens their sales pitch, and exaggerating any correlation that helps sell their viewpoint. . .

Well said, SM. However your point does or doesn't apply to AGW, anyone who thinks science operates objectively in the short-term needs to read Chapter 4, "The Dark Side of Science," in The China Study.

[Typhoon]

Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments



The Impact of Urbanization on Land Temperature Trends

So what? this is irelevant to the issue of Long wave radiation decrease. I don't think you have any idea what I'm talking about.

In fact if concrete etc was significant LWR would be increasing, so you contradict yourself.

The data do not agree with your "Anne Elk" hypotheses which you have and which are yours regarding longwave radiation.



Even Wikipedia notes that

There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that buildings block surface heat from radiating into the relatively cold night sky. Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration (for example through lack of vegetation) in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas for pavement and roofs, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas.

You need to do a bit more homework here.

I willl note also that it is hilarious after only just posting how it is impossible to accurately measure temperature a hundred years ago you post that very measurement in attempt to support.

You also need to do spend more time on comprehension.

[Carbizene]

The data do not agree with your "Anne Elk" hypotheses which you have and which are yours regarding longwave radiation.

Well if you think that spectral absorption of LWR is "Anne Elk" then there is not much point is there.

Under your suggestion the Greenhouse effect doesn't exist.

Which is essentially what the New Luddites argue.

[Carbizene]

If you measure an increase in an insulating variable that reduces lost heat, lost heat will decrease......Duh!

OK so what is causing the increase in insulating variable?

Does it have the same effect on incoming radiation? What bout that big bright round thing in the sky?

Solar activity has in no way significantly changed over the relevant period.

re your 0.1C red herring I already said I don't know. Though feel free to use the data like Typhoon did.